Blog #5 - Madeleine Perko

Today I went to the BTU and I worked with two students who proved to be rather self-sufficient. I had distantly worked with one of the two students the week prior (lets call her Ally), but for the first time I had the opportunity to read her writing. My first impression of Ally from merely glancing at her work was that she was a perfectionist. I was proved right. Not only was her handwriting flawless, her writing structured, her process detailed, organized and effortlessly translated to her next step, but more importantly, her writing was very advanced. In fact, after reading the first line of her intro paragraph, I began thinking about how I was going to go about telling her than she cannot copy sentences directly from a source… but as I kept reading, her sentences flowed and it was obvious the paper reflected her very advanced writing voice. She demonstrated great ability to engage the reader with emotive language and chose to frame natural disasters in the context of their impact on the environment and people throughout history, further delivering a meaningful message. I made edits and discussed with her the value of interspersing short statements around long detailed sentences in order to give the reader a moment to absorb so much information and reinforce the main points of the paper. I was thrilled with her work, with her receptiveness to my advice and her enthusiasm for the assignment. But with all of that, I became increasingly concerned for the other student (lets call her Amanda) working alongside her at the table.

Amanda, just as another student from the week before (Allison), was distracted by Ally’s abilities and “perfect” process that it prevented them from working in a way that reflected their own needs. Allison was far more enveloped in her own form of writing and process of writing that Amanda was, so it was it was easier for her to continue without become sidetracked by the idea that her writing and writing process should resembles Ally’s. Amanda however, was more organized, had neater writing and seemed to place high value on these “superficial” indicators of a “perfect” or “ideal” process. She was so drawn to Ally’s work and persistently engaged with Ally and decided to recreate many of the steps Ally did for her own writing. She then went on to exchange papers so they could peer edit each others work. At this point Amanda clearly was struggling in comparing herself to Ally. It was not that she was jealous or even feeling discouraged by her own writing, but she verbalized that she did not agree that sentences should be so wordy and complex as Ally was making them. I was happy that she came to this conclusion and I tried to reinforce the idea that it is more than okay to have a different writing voice than Ally.

I think that going forward, Amanda, as it is natural to do so, will continue to compare herself to Ally. Ally is unique in her ability to be so organized and easily put pen to paper, but I wonder if the ease as which she is able to do this will change over time as writing assignments evolve to include more critical thinking. In the meantime, I hope that Amanda, Allison and other students receive reinforcement in the value of their own individual and messier processes of writing. I used try just and follow a strictly regimented program of writing like they are trying to replicate by watching Ally, but I have seen how problematic that can be and hope to help them embrace their own path.