Teacher Conferences Analysis
The one-on-one conference each student had with the instructor were set up to be a comfortable, face-to-face meeting during which the student and instructor could discuss the second draft of the position paper. These expectations were met with ease, and the instructor's rapport with her students fostered a sense of receptivity from the students. Despite the best intentions of every instructor of first year composition, we often have trouble re-stating the same issues in a different way so that each student can understand the message, but we always tell the students everything we can to help their writing.
The comments generated by this second draft tended to fall under three main categories: correctness, ethos, and writing. The correctness of the draft tended to focus on the technical aspects of writing in MLA formatting. The size of margins was brought up. The placement of periods after an in-text citation was brought up. The order of a works cited entry and the italicization of what parts was brought up. The hanging indents of the works cited page were even covered. At times, it was a complete rehash of everything the instructor had taught in the class periods leading up to this second draft of the position paper. The students were still struggling with the problems associated with how the writing should actually look when on the page. This type of feedback consumed a large portion of the conferences I observed. As a first-year class, the students had difficulty internalizing a lengthy, detailed, highly specific format that appeared arbitrary and capricious to them. However, by focusing on this, the instructor may have given the impression that the way it looked was as important as what the student said rather then just being a polishing technique. At times, though, the instructor would make it a point to mention that she didn’t care about the format as much as the ideas. The repetition of this focus set up a pattern in which the instructor appeared to be looking for moments where the page physically didn’t match expectations.
The ethos of the students was also a major emphasis. The instructor wanted each student to have a clear argument that was nicely supported by different authoritative texts. She often talked to the students about how their opinions are assumed to all the sentences not attributed to others, which was in line with her comments about the students guiding their argument and not allowing others to speak for them. The instructor often pointed out that what the students had to contribute to the paper was a way of telling the passive reader what was important and how to think through the topic at hand. This type of feedback was important for students to hear, but the terminology used was often vague, and she used phrases “comment back to it.” While experienced writers can intuit what this means, these first-year writers had problems associating their words with those of an expert. Her comments tended to suggest that a proper balance of expert opinions and their own opinions was easily struck and wholly a value presented by the author for readers to see.
The other major component of the conferences centered on the ways in which the students’ style was influenced by the ways in which their paragraphs functioned within the argument. Much time in each conference was spent asking the students whether a particular paragraph was only covering one idea. Often, this was pointed out after the instructor had decided that the paragraph did, in fact, introduce two disparate ideas. The students were asked the question with a presumed answer already floating around the room, waiting to be grasped. Comments like this also further developed the sense that the author must be I charge of the meaning their readers are supposed to get from their essays. The instructor repeatedly talked about how you can make your point clear, evident, and discernable. Equivocation was thrown out the window.
Equivocation over the meanings available and equivocation over what the instructor thought was important were not available to the students. Despite the instructor's best efforts to make the conference feel like a collaboration, everything she brought up with students seemed to be authoritative. The citations were scrutinized with an outside authority in mind. The paragraphs were dissected with the instrucor as the figure setting the standards. Even the instances where suggestions were brought up, such as asking the students if a better transition could be written, the authority was set, and it rest with the students.
No one who has taught first year composition can avoid this, though. This instructor faces the same pressure to prepare students for a specific class in the future, a class whose standards are driving the current class. Her comments regarding options for students comes from a legitimate concern with fostering student voices, and the conflict arises when she feels the need to bridge the gap between hearing a student’s voice and making sure they develop the skill needed to fulfill stringent requirements the student will face in the future. The instructor is the only person in the class who knows what those requirements are, and, as a result, she must be the one who instills them.
The comments generated by this second draft tended to fall under three main categories: correctness, ethos, and writing. The correctness of the draft tended to focus on the technical aspects of writing in MLA formatting. The size of margins was brought up. The placement of periods after an in-text citation was brought up. The order of a works cited entry and the italicization of what parts was brought up. The hanging indents of the works cited page were even covered. At times, it was a complete rehash of everything the instructor had taught in the class periods leading up to this second draft of the position paper. The students were still struggling with the problems associated with how the writing should actually look when on the page. This type of feedback consumed a large portion of the conferences I observed. As a first-year class, the students had difficulty internalizing a lengthy, detailed, highly specific format that appeared arbitrary and capricious to them. However, by focusing on this, the instructor may have given the impression that the way it looked was as important as what the student said rather then just being a polishing technique. At times, though, the instructor would make it a point to mention that she didn’t care about the format as much as the ideas. The repetition of this focus set up a pattern in which the instructor appeared to be looking for moments where the page physically didn’t match expectations.
The ethos of the students was also a major emphasis. The instructor wanted each student to have a clear argument that was nicely supported by different authoritative texts. She often talked to the students about how their opinions are assumed to all the sentences not attributed to others, which was in line with her comments about the students guiding their argument and not allowing others to speak for them. The instructor often pointed out that what the students had to contribute to the paper was a way of telling the passive reader what was important and how to think through the topic at hand. This type of feedback was important for students to hear, but the terminology used was often vague, and she used phrases “comment back to it.” While experienced writers can intuit what this means, these first-year writers had problems associating their words with those of an expert. Her comments tended to suggest that a proper balance of expert opinions and their own opinions was easily struck and wholly a value presented by the author for readers to see.
The other major component of the conferences centered on the ways in which the students’ style was influenced by the ways in which their paragraphs functioned within the argument. Much time in each conference was spent asking the students whether a particular paragraph was only covering one idea. Often, this was pointed out after the instructor had decided that the paragraph did, in fact, introduce two disparate ideas. The students were asked the question with a presumed answer already floating around the room, waiting to be grasped. Comments like this also further developed the sense that the author must be I charge of the meaning their readers are supposed to get from their essays. The instructor repeatedly talked about how you can make your point clear, evident, and discernable. Equivocation was thrown out the window.
Equivocation over the meanings available and equivocation over what the instructor thought was important were not available to the students. Despite the instructor's best efforts to make the conference feel like a collaboration, everything she brought up with students seemed to be authoritative. The citations were scrutinized with an outside authority in mind. The paragraphs were dissected with the instrucor as the figure setting the standards. Even the instances where suggestions were brought up, such as asking the students if a better transition could be written, the authority was set, and it rest with the students.
No one who has taught first year composition can avoid this, though. This instructor faces the same pressure to prepare students for a specific class in the future, a class whose standards are driving the current class. Her comments regarding options for students comes from a legitimate concern with fostering student voices, and the conflict arises when she feels the need to bridge the gap between hearing a student’s voice and making sure they develop the skill needed to fulfill stringent requirements the student will face in the future. The instructor is the only person in the class who knows what those requirements are, and, as a result, she must be the one who instills them.