Last week I met with Mary Fraser to go over what data SASC had already obtained regarding writing support services. Something we came across in conversation— which I had not yet considered— was how ethical it would be to produce resources that addressed issues commonly discussed during tutoring sessions. Initially, I could only see the positivity associated with creating these resources: students would be able to answer some of their own questions and tutors wouldn’t have to feel like they were constantly repeating themselves or wasting time on general instruction. However, there is of course an alternate, more negative, potential effect of creating resources that address issues students commonly run into when writing: self-eradication. By creating resources that holistically address common problems in the writing process (citing, drafting, outlining etc.) I could unintentionally reduce the number of visits students are making to the tutoring center.
There are a few nuances of this potential effect that I think will be imperative for me to consider when creating these resources and theorizing my target audience for them. First, is the understanding that students often come to the tutoring center asking for help about a certain aspect of writing and get help with another aspect entirely. This is an experience I have commonly: students want help with grammar, but, ethically and logically, I am unwilling to focus on grammar with them before we consider proper sentence structure. For instance, yesterday a student came to me and wanted to know how to use a semi-colon, but first we had to talk about how to determine whether or not they had two complete independent clauses, and then we had to talk about whether or not they had a coordinating conjunction that needed to be replaced. As we edited, we found that the sentences were not full, independent clauses, and so we had to refer back to the text in order to untangle the logical causality of the sentence and its intention. Often, this top-down process illuminates the root of the writing’s furcation effectively, but the entire meeting was reliant on understanding the use of a semi-colon. If I make a comprehensive, accessible grammar guide, I could potentially be reducing the number of tutoring appointments because the student would be able to get a direct clarification of the question they had. What is quite clearly missing, is the application of these principles in the specific context of their writing. But if the student came to the SASC only thinking they had issues with lower order punctuation issues, how likely is it that they’d realize they have higher order organizational concerns?
Another nuance to consider when thinking about the ethicality of creating writing resources, is that if the resources are created trying to address more distinct writing qualms, instead of more clear (black and white) writing concerns, I might be placing my own tutoring experience over others. For instance, I’ve found that describing the overall organization of writing in the shape of an hour glass (the beginning of an essay or a paragraph has a broad claim, the center narrows and gives specific information and supporting analyses, and the end provides an even more broad context for the read to understand the specific information within). However, perhaps one of my fellow writing tutors thinks that it’s easiest to describe the organization of a paper in less discrete terms, and finds conversationally explicating a student’s unique organization produces the best writing. If I were to be able to create resources that addressed organization, but only addressed them in explicit ways, I could be unintentionally limiting student access to a more conversational modality of understanding.
Ultimately, when creating standardized resources for students, it will be imperative to consider the implications standardizing a distinctly ambiguous process. Additionally, I will have to be careful to include referral to the tutoring center as part of the creation of my resources. Otherwise, I could limit student access while trying to improve it, or limit diversification of students’ understanding through the inevitable oversimplification of the writing process.
