Reading Blog 1: Lunsford, North, Mattison, and Latta

Lunsford    

    The essence of Lunsford’s piece is a thorough review and analysis of the makeup and dynamic of different types of writing centers. Lunsford introduces the idea of the “Storehouse” and the idea of the “Garret” before introducing a more effective way of operating a center, the “Burkean Parlor,” which emphasizes collaboration among students.

    One thing that I found interesting from the reading is the comparison between the “storehouse” and the “garret”. Though Lunsford describes them as two completely different operations, I think that they can be viewed in an almost complementary or sequential way; the development of research and technical skills one obtains from the storehouse and the development of one’s voice delve into two different curricula of writing. Knowledge of grammar, syntax, and research is not an inherent trait that can be unlocked at a Garret Center, and the affinity for writing voice and prowess can not be gleaned from the objectivity entailed by learning at a Storehouse Center.

    One question that I still have following the reading is how might gaps in knowledge that might exist in student-led collaborative writing be filled?

North

    “The Idea of a Writing Center” is a synopsis of the true essence of writing centers driven by his frustration in seeing the plethora of misconceptions surrounding their function. North dispels the idea that writing centers serve only as supplementary “fix-it” shops and instead emphasizes that they are a fundamental part of the writing process for people of all skill levels.

    A piece of the essay that I found noteworthy was North’s description of the importance of “talking” in a writing center and the many different forms that it can take. North argues that the repetitive nature of writing demands that what is capable of improving it must exist outside of the cycle of composition in the form of talk, similar to the sentiment of collaboration found in Lunsford’s work. Therein lies the problem with current writing centers and the perception of them, as this talking/collaboration process that is essential to the idea of a writing center is cast aside in favor of a center’s pursuit of purely quantitative results, often due to funding issues.

    One question that remains is what a practical approach to the universal implementation of North’s ideas might look like.

Mattison

    Mattison’s essay is a reflection of his previous approach to introducing the topic of writing centers and the literature he uses, including North’s The Idea of a Writing Center. Mattison emphatically claims that he is done with North’s work, conceding that the essay is not without its merits but claiming it to be too emotionally charged to introduce potential tutors.

    One segment of the essay I found of note is when Mattison describes the makeup of the average writing center. He says that the tutors and advisors consist of undergraduates of all fields of study, be they biology, political science, or history. Mattison claims that it is this diversity of thought within writing centers that makes North’s “Idea” of a writing center so appealing. I think that the processes of talking and collaboration mentioned in the works of Lunsford of North demands this diversity in thought and experience. It would behoove any writer to have their work seen not only by a different eye but a different mind.

    A question pertaining to this diversity is how might differences in writing preference and writing experience be overcome in the collaboration process.

Latta

    Latta’s essay is a critique of North’s approach to writing centers, claiming that it takes too universal a stance and that its idea of making “better writers” employs deficit thinking. Latta instead argues that centers should incorporate a student’s extenuating circumstances, including their general attitude, into the writing process.

    Latta makes a point that deficit thinking occurs in North’s assumption that students have a continual need to improve their writing. He argues instead that it would be more pertinent to attend to the traits of the writer than to his writing. I don’t think that the criticism of North’s “assumption” is necessarily fair: as writing centers are voluntary in nature, the “assumption” is predicated only on the student already being present there. Latta operates on the absurdity that a student would voluntarily attend a center session under the assumption that there is nothing of their writing that needs correcting or improving.

    A question I have pertaining to his argument is whether focusing on so many aspects of a student’s writing, including the externalities that may have affected their writing, will dilute the effectiveness of each and devolve the center from its core purpose.