Journal #1
Paul Gillespie and Neil Lerner’s The Longman Guide to Tutoring includes an extremely well-articulated list of writing techniques and processes. To say that the procedures they detail, juxtapose my personal writing style, would be an (almost offensive) understatement. To me, the images their list evokes are ones of clearly written outlines; beautifully annotated and analyzed first-drafts; and an internalized list of to-do’s, which immediately pops into one’s head upon the assignment of any essay or research paper. When I recall images of myself writing, I see spilled coffee; a staticky television in the background, which I can never seem to figure out how to shut off, but manages to supply a very loud and unhelpful buzzing; and a completely blank paper, staring back at me as if I’m holding a gun to it’s head. Perhaps that is an abstract and lengthy way to say: as a writer, I’m a mess! And I can’t even begin to see myself as the experienced and concise writer that Gillespie and Lerner seem to assume me to be. That being said (and I promise it was not to simply reach my word count) Lerner and Gillespie acknowledge on page 23 that my, ‘knowledge of the writing process’, is especially helpful to the writer throughout the process of finding meaning in their own writing. That notion, is one that I could not agree more with. While I may not have the organization that lends itself to following the outline on pages 33 and 34– I do have the capability to find meaning.
This capability is one that I didn’t really think about before reading The Longman Guide to Peer Tutoring. In fact, I regarded this quality of mine as a bit of a burden, often coaching myself through a required reading with phrases like: “That’s not as important as you think it is.”, and even, “Delaney, don’t let that inspire you right now.”. Gillespie and Lerner have effectively influenced me (in the pondering of just their first three chapters) to identify my strengths, and my shortcomings. And after really reading the text– not just distracting myself with my own opinions– this seems to be exactly what they hope a peer tutor can do for a writer.
I know this strand of thought is rather paradoxical; which is perhaps not the most promising quality of a future peer tutor, especially when compared to the concise nature of Gillespie and Lerner’s example tutoring session on page 31. Yet, there is undeniable nuance in the fact that I just recognized my own ineptness by referring to the observations I made about what a good peer tutor is– just to realize that I still hold the qualities of a (potentially) good peer tutor.
And the further I delve into my own thoughts of this nuance, I become less contained by my own definition of what I can’t do (i.e, helping someone organize their thoughts) and more enthralled by what I can do (i.e, developing the ultimate meaning of writing). This transcendence of self-constraint, combined with the freedom found within the infinite confines of language, is the idea expressed by Gillespie and Lerner that is to me, most important. In fact, it is also one of the first ones they make: writing on page 14, “The goal in applying our model is to develop control and flexibility…” . Conclusively, I’ve determined that if I can identify this ability– to both be controlled, and yet still manage to have no bounds– in myself and my own writing, I can probably use it to help someone outline a paper on the origins of epidemiology (or whatever).
