Ted Daisher Philosophy Statement/Brainstorm When first introduced to the idea of a writing philosophy, my mind immediately went to a conclusion

I had drawn from the different readings weve covered up to this point in the class: writing is ultimately a purpose driven activity and all components of piece of writing must contribute to the reaching of that purpose. If I could instill this concept in a clients mind, then they could use it as a guide in future assignments. This aligns with the UCWbLs goal of developing a writer instead of just developing a writers text. I developed this concept from Joseph Williams explanation of arbitrariness in grammatical rules, Flower and Hayess idea that writing is an iterative process working towards a goal (460), and Cope and Kalantziss idea that all writing works to create a social change. F&H and C&K both explore and agree that writing is a goal-oriented activity: writing is a medium by which we achieve something. Williams identifies that what are frequently considered indisputable grammatical rules that one must adhere to are sometimes arbitrary and frequently just stylistic preferences. C&K also identify that while the traditional structures must be understood so that one can enter and navigate discourses of the groups with social and political power, one should not restrict oneself to those structures. They explain that if a writer feels deviating from a traditional structure would further the goal of their writing, the writer should feel free to do so. Collectively these writers have explained that the typical structures and rules governing grammar are not the highest priority. They are subject to the purpose of each specific piece of writing; these authors have collective made the purpose of a piece of writing the highest priority and the ultimate arbiter of everything else in the paper. There is a problem in this prioritizing. As C&K explain, students still need to understand the traditional structures in order to navigate systems of social and political power (speak properly, use academic language, use technical language appropriate for ones field,) and to know how to deviate from these structures when appropriate (elaborate on these two points, note to self). Brooks identifies another problem. Brooks explains that academic writing has a different purpose than writing in the professional world. In the professional world, the explicit purpose of a piece of writing is its only and highest purpose. This is not true in academic writing. Students write to learn how to write. A student may write a argument-based paper with the purpose of convincing a reader of something, but the higher purpose of that writing is to develop in the student the cognitive skill of making a claim.

Flowers and Hayes corroborate this by explaining that writing is a cognitive process, a process of exploring, organizing, and articulating ideas. Many writings with explicit purposes actually have a second, higher purpose for students: developing the internal, mental infrastructure needed to explore and articulate ideas. This idea of writing having multiple purposes, both overt and subtle, leads me to question the purpose of tutoring again. Potentially my interaction with clients could have the overt purpose of instilling in them the concept of writing as purpose driven, but also have the more important secondary purpose of developing in the client the ability to think. Sommers would potentially support this position. She stresses the importance of not appropriating a clients writing and provides strategies for not doing this oriented around an effort to have the writer reflect and question their own ideas. According to Sommers, comments should force the writer to critically reflect on their ideas, the evolution of their ideas in their writing, and the reasoning behind those ideas. Maybe my strategy should be to have clients understand, writing is the cognitive act of shaping and articulating ideas; this articulation is! Metaphor: A piece of writing is a ship: NO STOWAWAYS Some issues I immediately ran into with this idea were that a writer might not be at a stage where they are capable of fully understanding or applying this idea. If I encounter such a writer, what is the appropriate way to approach teaching this concept? Do I break it down and instill the components the writer is capable of processing? Do I try and teach the whole concept and see what sticks? Also, would my focus on such a specific concept incline me to appropriate or be inflexible in my interactions? Ive worried about this specifically with some of the students I recently fellowed. I tried to approach each students unique case and focus on what I thought was appropriate, but while reflecting, Ive begun to wonder if I was unintentionally applying this philosophy. After each students session I noticed that there papers had very similar ideas. They were not identical ideas, nor identical evolutions of those ideas, but they were similar. Ive wondered if they just had similar ideas or if I guided them to similar conclusions based on what I thought the appropriate goal for the paper was. Upon additional reflection, I dont think I appropriated or inappropriately lead students to the same conclusion. Looking again at their outlines, they just had similar ideas; however, the situation still illustrates my doubts and fears about dominating my clients ideas.

In class last week we had some time to brainstorm about our philosophy with another student. Alex and I discussed where we were in the creation of our philosophies and I found it very helpful. Alex described her philosophy as wanting the writer to know that any progressive made in their development as a writer is valuable. Her concern was how to create a valuable interaction with writers when a writer is vague about what they want or the help they need. Alex highlighted the importance and value of a writer developing at whatever stage they are at. Incorporating this idea into my own, maybe I can think of my interactions with writers as purpose driven; that purpose being the creating of understanding for the writer for whatever level of skill the have. This philosophy or objective is corroborated by what Brooks points out in his article: A student writes not just for the overt purpose of the paper, but to learn, to develop the cognitive ability of articulating their ideas in writing. My philosophy could be to facilitate or catalyze it. I think this also aligns with one of the UCWbls goals: to develop better writers, not just better text. With my philosophy, I would develop better writers through the cognitive process of developing their text. I further support this point with Vygotskys concept of the Zone of Proximate Development. The Zone of Proximate development is the process by which, through collaboration and the articulation and sharing of ones ideas, a group accomplishes something beyond the capability level of each individual. The achieving of what is beyond ones capabilities as an individual drives forward their development. Two essential requirements for the zone of proximate development are, there is a competent peer who guides the group and the group engages in a purposeful activity. I think Vygotskys model fits what we do at the writing center perfectly. Tutors collaborate with writers in the purposeful activity of creating a piece of writing; writers and tutors articulate and share their ideas and through the interaction create a piece of writing stronger than what the writer could create alone. This drives forward the writers development. An immediate question that comes to my mind is, is this a philosophy or a methodology? I think it can be both. What I want writers to get is that writing is a purpose driven activity and that all components of a piece of writing should cohesively work towards that purpose; however, writing is a dynamic, cognitive process, and development at any level is valuable. If one does not fully get it, then one should not be discouraged; one should understand that as a writer, and this includes all writers, are abilities are dynamic and constantly developing. I support this philosophy with Effie Maclellans explanation of fixed versus dynamic understandings of intelligence. If I can instill in writers a dynamic understanding of their ability levels, they will be open to taking more risks and thus increase the rate of their growth.

I want writers to get that writing is a purposeful activity, but more importantly I want them to understand that not understanding or being yet being able to apply that concept skillfully is fine; I want them to get that not getting it is an inherent part of being a writer.