Debate Over Language Use

Hi, folks. An article well worth reading in today's edition of the NYTimes: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/arguing-about-language/?hp. The writer speaks of traditionalists and revisionists, and claims both are correct, albeit in different ways. I think, in the Writing Center, we are smack dab in the middle of this discussion each day as we work with writers. (And it's really neat to use the phrase "smack dab.")

What's a Metaphor?

For keeping your sheep in. Puns aside, I'm glad the metaphors seemed to be a hit. They are intended to be a way of thinking about your work, in part by not thinking about it. When we take the first choice that comes to mind, I'd argue we are doing what Malcolm Gladwell calls "thin slicing." We are making sense of a situation quickly, so quickly that we don't notice the thinking that we are doing. He details such quick action (what others sometimes call intuition, but that's a term Gladwell dislikes) in his book _blink_, which I recommend: http://www.gladwell.com/blink/index.html. I believe as writing advisors we also begin to thin slice, building up and then using our experiences with many writers to decide where to go in a session quickly. We might not be able to chart our thinking as to why we made a decision, but it's still a thoughtful response, one made too quickly to capture. I think picking up the first metaphor (or simile) is similar. You are thinking about it, but that thinking is so buried that you are not cognizant of it.

Conversations

So I'm currently listening to a host of conversations--the English 101 folks are working with the morning group, talking about their feed essays and then brainstorming on their final papers. Lots of good moments that I've noted already, instances of writers responding with "oh, I could do that" and "yeah, I understand." You folks are saying, "As a reader, I was confused here," or "this was a really strong point for me; I understood what you meant." The third hallway of Hollenbeck is echoing with these conversations; you're spread out from one side of the building to the other.

Very cool.

ECWCA

A great conference. That's pretty much the consensus after this weekend. Seven advisors went up to present at IUPUI on Friday and Saturday, and everything went well. Leigh and Kali talked on chaos in the writing center, and no less than Mickey Harris, the keynote speaker, attended their session (yup, she wrote the article you read, Sarah). She said the presentation was excellent. And so was Jordan, Tyler, and Rebecca's, on how work in other centers influences their work in the Writing Center, and so was Colin and Kelsey's on how we talk with writers. I may even try to have them come in to 242 and give the presentation. They examined both student texts and transcripts of sessions to uncover what questions we ask and how they might affect a writer.
I also found some other sessions that sparked a lot of ideas. I've got a copy of a tutoring rubric that I'll bring in to show you. And, there are more ideas for research that we can, and should, conduct in a writing center, trying to measure and evaluate the work we do. If we look to make better writers, and better texts, then how to we determine how well or even if we are doing that.
And, of course, we found a good restaurant. An Italian place where we ordered together and ate as much as we liked. For dessert, tiramisu. Fantastic. And the fried zucchini was excellent, too. They announced at this conference that the next one will probably be over in Clarion, Pennsylvania, so perhaps some of you will be interested in attending that one. A good, energizing, invigorating time, which is what a conference should be.