When deciding on the validity of the theory of “minimalist tutoring,” or the “master class model,” I tend to lean towards the latter. But don’t get me wrong, I appreciate what the minimalist theory of tutoring strives for, and I love when students find the answer on their own, but let’s be truthful: how many students do you know have the time to sit down and create such masterful ideas? Most of the time, these students do not have time to sleep a good number of hours a night let alone write a paper. The ideas of Jeff Brooks present answers for a “Utopian” kind of learning environment, and I believe that most of what the Shamoon and Burns article present is more realistic.
When critiquing the Brooks article, I first found the strengths of his argument: the way the tutor should sit beside the student, and having the student focus on his or her own writing by having the tutor take on a secondary role. However, even these strengths are weaknesses: a tutor can sit this way, whether or not using the minimalist method. And also, the writer may be unresponsive and even more confused if left out alone with their paper; the only way that the student will know what to do is by seeing example.
It was much easier to find the weaknesses. First off, most of Brooks’ steps to achieving the minimalist form of tutoring are awkward, if not impossible. My favorite? “Have the student read the paper aloud to you, and suggest that he hold a pencil while doing so. Aside from saving your eyes in the case of bad handwriting, this will accomplish three things…” (Brooks, 171). Just reading the instructions leaves me confused, I couldn’t imagine doing this in a session, especially with someone I’ve just met. Another favorite: “Give the student a discrete writing task, then go away for a few minutes” (Brooks, 172). I couldn’t even imagine leaving someone when they have distinctly come in for my help.
But the problem, even more than the awkwardness, is the inconsistency of these tips. Not every student will create a perfect thesis in those three minutes you step out of the room. Perhaps they write nothing; then what will you do? Create some new awkward circumstance to hopefully pry some creative thought out of their confused, or simply uninterested, head? No, I cannot see how this would work. Myself being a very visual person, I learn by seeing, by copying, by comparing. This learning is similar to the opinion of Linda K. Shamoon and Deborah H. Burns, who offer a “model-type” mode of learning.
Burns observes that when teachers take control of a writer’s work, and show them what to do, the students often learn much more: “He took their papers and rewrote them while they watched. They left feeling better able to complete their papers, and they tackled other papers with more ease and success” (Burn, 177). It is important to note here that the teaching is not writing their paper for them, but showing them how to write it (and also how to write many more like this). It is incredibly important to learn this way for some students who are much more visual. I know that in my case, to have a teacher literally circle my errors and provide support, I learn much more efficiently than having my teacher leave the room while I ponder in utter confusion.
I keep wondering if Brooks intends to provoke this very argument with his article. It is a piece that has pushed the theory of tutoring forward. Our own center and WAC Program, however, are more directive than the utopian minimalist center and Burkean parlor.
ReplyDelete