The Trichotomy of Learning Spaces

Candice Cowan

The discourse of academic writing is rooted in an unreadable undertone that implies it must be weighed down with pretentious jargon in order to be considered successful. Traditional classrooms are closely associated with this concept, therefore, rendering them incapable of universal acceptance. They have adopted the methodology of instructing students to conform rather than adapt to the rigorous standard of academic writing. Moreover, at home, learning freedoms are boundless and this structureless environment can cause regression from the classroom pedagogy. Between these two environments, there is a dissociation causing an imbalance of learning. Writing centers are the median that connects the strict structure of the traditional classroom with the languid structure of the home thus allowing for more inclusivity.

As a collective, the writing center should be considered a universal learning space where students from diverse backgrounds can collaborate with mentors and peers to become better writers. When it comes to creating an inclusive environment, writing centers are capable of breaking down the rigid traditions and utilize tools to assist all students, especially those from marginalized communities. Educating tutors through workshops, seminars, and conferences will equip them with the necessary tools and the knowledge of how to apply them. Thus, by providing tutors with a platform to build upon prompts awareness about the differences in students and their learning capabilities. Moreover, there are conferences, such as, the National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing (NCPTW) that are a useful database that tutors can access. The NCPTW’s axiom commits to “promoting the teaching of writing through collaborative learning”. Building writing centers on a diverse mentality will produce innovative ideas in this collaborative setting. In Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow, David Bartholomae discusses the discord on the standards of composition within learning centers. “If our goal is to make a writer aware of the forces at play in the production of knowledge, we need to highlight the classroom as a substation-as a real space, not as an idealized utopian space” (66). While the concept of a cohesive learning space isn’t foreign, it is impractical when it comes to providing educational support for a diverse range of students. The traditional classrooms, even when unanimously structured to be rigorous, can lack in resources that accomplish this standard. Moreover, the home is rarely prepared to be a proper learning center, and the disadvantages create discord among students that come to fruition in shared learning spaces. For some, exposure to proper education is limited and currently, these students create the bulk of modern classrooms. Therefore, it is imperative to offer resources they feel comfortable accessing.

In order to disrupt this ideology, an inclusive restructuring of tutoring will aid in the cultural development of writing centers. Accordingly, by implementing more tutoring practices where students can freely explore how they want their work to be viewed and options to achieve this, the focus shifts from only creating better papers to better writers. In On Students’ Rights to Their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response, Lil Brannon and C. H. Knoblauch states that “granting students control of their own writing can create a rich ground for nurturing skills because the writer’s motive for developing them lies in the realization that an intended reader is willing to take the writer’s meaning seriously” (165). Teachers tend to follow the traditional format that can often devalue a student’s writing. When a student’s work is reviewed, it is done through the teacher’s own Ideal Texts. Lil Brannon and C. H. Knoblauch further state Ideal Texts format is “the teacher “knows best,” knows what the writer should do and how it should be done, and feels protective because his or her competence is superior to that of the writer” (159). Consequently, by not granting the student the option to be reviewed in a serious manner, their work suffers. Tutors can divert from this format by asking the student beforehand about the ideas they want to have their work represent. Through this method, the tutor and the student become collaborators on the student’s work with the student given the position of authority. As co-collaborators, the student can educate the tutor on what they want the outcome of their writing to be. Thus, tutors are provided with an in-depth understanding of how to assist them. The revision stage is traditionally dictated by teachers; however, this method gives the student control of their writing process. With this authority, they will build an incentive to improve their work and learn how to accomplish their own ideas. Therefore, during these sessions, they learn what to look for, instead of just being told, and that evolves into the ability to spot weaknesses in later works. When students have their weaknesses pointed out, they become mistakes that are only corrected in that single instance. In this inclusive environment, students will be given authority over their own work which prompts confidence to achieve the goals they have set.

Writing centers can exist outside of perceived boundaries on what can be taught and what should be taught. They are the threshold where a sense of self-awareness can take root. The discord of acceptable writing practices stems from the disconnect that the defined boundaries of traditional classrooms and the borderless boundaries of the home are established. Educational boundaries are rooted in the ideology that teachers have an authoritarian role and students are viewed as a unified body. In Writing Centers: Being Proactive in the Education Crisis, Melissa Turner states, “Writing centers provide opportunities not normally found within the physical or time constraints of the traditional classroom because they are “more flexible than the classroom to anticipate the special requirements of individuals” (Brannon and Knoblauch 1994, 46)” (45). Furthermore, when students are considered as a collective, the pedagogies pertain to the needs of the majority and it is the individual student who suffers. When confined within the rigorous curriculum that academia is known for, marginalized students are rendered defenseless. While the purpose of boundaries is necessary, for numerous reasons, they can be restrictive and require students to adhere to an archaic learning methodology. Moreover, it leads to these educational boundaries transforming into barriers to diversity. These learning spaces are where students can gain the necessary tools that will assist them in proper assimilation into academia. In the same article, Melissa Turner remarks that by focusing on the individual this method “diffuses the confusion and frustration students feel if they do not understand the act of writing” (45). Writing centers provide the student with a set of skills that resonate beyond the traditional classroom. As the separation of instructor and student grows, writing centers are an asset that translates academic writing into something achievable. Therefore, by conquering educational boundaries, students can freely navigate the writing process an infinite amount of times.

Works Cited

Brannon, Lil, and C. H. Knoblauch. “On Students’ Rights to Their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 33, no. 2, 1982, pp. 157–166. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/357623.

Bartholomae, David. “Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 46, no. 1, 1995, pp. 62–71. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/358870.

“National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing.” NCPTW, 2013, http://ncptw.chicagolandwritingcenters.org/

Turner, Melissa. “Writing Centers: Being Proactive in the Education Crisis.” The Clearing House, vol. 80, no. 2, 2006, pp. 45–47. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30182148.

Author’s Biography

Candice is an undergraduate at Arizona State University pursuing a major in English with a minor in Anthropology. She is an active participant in the writing community at ASU as vice president of the Writing Network and working as a Writing Mentor. The genres Candice writes in vary from fantasy, sci-fiction, and nonfiction. Outside of writing, she enjoys reading, listening to music from all over the world, and drinking an absurd amount of tea.