Week 4

North, Steve. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” College English 46.5 (1984): 433-446.

At the time this article was written in the early 1980’s, North states that writing centers were used as a place for instructors to send students who were labeled as struggling writers. Either that, or such spaces were used as a stop-gap, as an opportunity for students to learn about writing skills that teachers felt they lacked the time and/or skills to teach. North begins by expressing his frustrations with such perspectives, and then goes on to challenge this perception and also offer suggestions about how writing centers should be viewed as legitimate spaces for all writers at all levels, and not solely as a “fill-in space.”

Thankfully, many writing center administrators and their institutions have heeded this call. North’s article reads as a fact sheet, highlighting many features of writing centers that are present today. It was a little frustrating and disappointing to see how much has remained the same, however. For instance, it seems as though many writing centers are still trying to prove themselves as valid spaces, suffering when budgets are cut, and headed by directors who are untenured staff. Rants aside, though, North’s article was helpful to read to gain a better sense of the context surrounding writing center literature.

In noticing how few changes there seem to have been, my first question is, “Why?” Beyond the reasons North cites of lack of familiarity and understanding, why are writing centers constantly trying to validate their existence? I also wonder how instructors who use writing colleagues view them. For example, do instructors in math and science disciplines, who may have minimal knowledge of writing pedagogy, see writing colleagues as individuals who can “carry the ball” as far as writing instruction goes? When the practice of writing gets compartmentalized instead of seen as something everyone does, it’s no wonder there are so many misconceptions about writing instructors and writing centers.

I found it interesting to read about writing centers’ means of publicity and how much that has remained consistent. Even with the surplus of technology available, we still rely on in-class visits, fliers, and other publicity strategies reminiscent of those North mentions. I was intrigued by his idea of having individuals from the writing center enter classrooms for sample tutorials. Offering such services might de-stigmatize writing help.

At the KSU writing commons, where I’m one of the assistant directors, we’ve been toying with the idea of replacing the term “tutor” with “consultant” or a similar word, to further de-stigmatize visiting the writing center. We’re interested in building on skills that the students already have, which is why the term “tutor” feels like it has a “remedial” quality to it that we want to distance ourselves from. We do indeed help students from a variety of contexts, some of which might require being corrective, but ultimately, we try to minimize directivity so that students are able to identify the changes that they want to make in their writing, with minimal interference from us. I’m curious if North would have a positive take on what we’re attempting at our writing center, where we see ourselves as guides and support rather than tutors.

Finally, I wonder how North would feel about programs that require students to meet with colleagues. He emphasizes the importance of students taking the initiative to seek out a writing tutor, as he writes, “nor should you require that all of your students drop by with an early draft of a research paper to get a reading from a fresh audience” (pp 440). I wonder what differences, if any, surface in students who self-select writing feedback versus those who are required. There are students who come to see us who are resentful of the requirement, and I’m not sure how much we help them. I agree with North that everyone, no matter their level, can benefit from a writing center visit, but I’m not sure that the required students agree.

---

Brooke, Robert. “Underlife and Writing Instruction.” College Composition and Communication 38.2 (1987): 141-153.

The article “Underlife and Writing Instruction” by Robert Brooke discusses the concept of underlife and how it plays a part in education. Underlife is a sociological idea that can be understood as “the activities individuals engage in to show that their identities are different from or more complex than the identities assigned them by organizational roles” (pp 142). In other words, others give everyone an identity based on their social interactions or organizations. How people present themselves physically, what is known of their past, and their view on the organizations they are assumed to belong to are all factors of what identity will be “assigned” to them. Participating in an underlife is essentially rejecting the role that one has been given by outsiders to show that they are more complex.

According to Brooke, there are two forms of underlife: disruptive and contained. Disruptive can be compared with unions, as they wish to abandon or alter the structure of certain organizations. Contained underlife is an attempt to show individuality from the assigned role, without eliminating the structure of the institution.

The purpose of underlife in the classroom is that it allows for students to take views towards the roles they are expected to take part in, and show others their point of view. Underlife that takes place in the classroom is usually of the contained form. Brooke performed an observational study of a first-year college writing class to study underlife. He found there are four major types of underlife activities. These included students using material or knowledge from the classroom in a different way than the teacher intended, students recognizing the roles they each play in the classroom, students evaluating certain aspects of the classroom, and students dividing attention between classroom activities and something else unrelated. All of these activities allow students to explore different roles and identities while still – hopefully – remaining successful in the classroom. It also allows them to show that they are not completely conforming to the role of student.

On the other hand, writing teachers are considered to play a part in the disruptive role of underlife. Writing teachers actively try to change the classroom roles to benefit students. According to Brooke, the goals in a writing class are different from other subjects. Writing teachers often note this as a struggle because they are forced to test students on writing “skills” when in reality writing teachers would like students to see themselves as writers and not only as traditional students. Writing teachers like to see students find their voice and identity through writing, but it is a virtually impossible task when teachers are forced to assign projects and then evaluate the students’ performances. To truly help students see themselves as writers and not just students complying with teachers’ demands, instructors must help them view writing classes as different from classes of other subjects. Teachers are asking students to take a disruptive form of underlife in the writing classroom rather than the contained form. By doing this, students will part from the normal roles of the classroom by becoming conscious of what these roles are and their differences from them. Writing instructors want students to accept their own underlife and discover these new roles and identities.

Brooke states, “…writing instruction comes into greatest conflict with the existing educational system, and also has the most to offer to it” (pp 152). He is saying that the shift of roles in the writing classroom would benefit the classrooms of other subjects as well. He uses the example of a student in a chemistry class seeing herself as a chemist rather than a student. Teachers need to “focus on fostering the identities of students as thinkers in our disciplines rather than merely on transmitting the knowledge of our fields” so that students are able to see themselves as something other than only a student complying with the demands of the classroom (pp 152). The concept of underlife helps to dissect the roles of teachers and students in the classroom and brings to light some issues in the educational system that could be changed to better benefit the student.