Within biology, it is the task of the taxonomist
to categorize different animals into their individual kingdom, phylum, class,
genus, order, and species. In doing so, it becomes simpler to tell both
the big and small differences between two different animals. In
"Tutor Taxonomy", Scott L. Miller takes a similar approach in the
writing center, grouping writing tutors into different "species"
based on the characteristics and differences that they share in their tutoring
philosophies.
Miller
describes two different varieties of tutors, which he calls P. taciturnus and P. rhetoricus. According to Miller's observations, the P. taciturnus variety of tutor tends to ask questions
more than offer direct advice. These tutors see their role as a supporter of
their tutee with a job of gently questioning and probing the tutee towards
understanding. This tutor, "...embodies faith and trust, trust that
the tutee is smart enough to work it out for himself ultimately, if not today"
(102).
P.
rhetoricus tutors, on the other hand, are known for being
more concerned about dispensing the knowledge that they have to the tutee.
These tutors tend to believe that there is a certain way that professors
want things to be written and aren't afraid to share this information with
their tutee.
Miller
supports these assertions by relating each of his species of tutors to
different tutoring models. P.
taciturnus is shown in relation to the minimalist tutoring model while P. rhetoricus is linked to a social-constructionist model of writing. (103) The
minimalist model is set up in such a way that the tutor's position is to help
the tutee express the ideas that they already possess through a series of
questions. This type of tutor believes that the tutee already knows what
they want to say, they simply need help expressing those thoughts in a manner
that is both meaningful and convincing. Miller also suggests that this
model of tutoring may be adopted by tutors when they are unfamiliar with the
rhetoric being used in the tutee's assignment.
P. rhetoricus, Miller suggests, is based
on a social-constructionist writing philosophy. Miller notes that this
type of tutor abides by the idea that a tutee may not know what they need to
say because they may not yet be familiar enough with their field to understand
how or why things are done a certain way. This type of tutor, Miller
says, would argue that we all have different voices that we develop and that,
"...the voices we exercise come to us along with the various
subjectivities we are required to or choose to adopt in life” (104).
From this assertion, this type of writing tutor would argue that tutees must be
taught what they should sound like.
With
such different philosophies, one may then question which method is
"right". Should a tutor attempt to ask more questions and guide
his tutee in the way of P.
taciturnus or is it in the best interest of the tutee to use an
approach more resembling that of P.
rhetoricus in which the role of the tutor is to directly instruct the
tutee in how he should write? Miller believes that neither of these
methods is necessarily better than the other nor that one should abandon one
vision for the other. Instead, he goes so far as to say that the writing
center needs both varieties
of tutors.
Works Cited
Miller, Scott L. "Tutor Taxonomy." Pedagogy 5.1 (2005): 102-115. Academic Search Complete.
Questions for the Tutor
- What
type of tutor do you think you are? Do you identify more closely with
P. taciturnus or P.
rhetoricus tutoring
“species”? What ways do your tutoring techniques reflect this?
- What
are some strong points of each of these tutoring types? What are
some weak points?
- How
can developing characteristics of each of these types of tutors make you a
more adept writing tutor?
- In
what context is the P. taciturnus type of tutor appropriate? The P. rhetoricus? Do
you think that the methods from each type can be blended together and in
what ways?
No comments:
Post a Comment