Summary:
North's article laments the notion that writing centers are seen as remedial, or a "fix-it shop." He states that a writing center should change the writers, not their just their work. He argues that writing centers shouldn't abide my a curriculum, but instead should help writers write. He concludes that " the essence of the writing center method... is talking (North, 443)."
Lunsford argues that a single authority teaching writing is detrimental, and that through collaboration is the best way to write. However, it's difficult to do properly, and must be done with caution (needing a way to for students to share a common goal, and spread the work evenly).
Comment:
I liked both articles. I think it's interesting how both of them realize that writing centers have problems, and both offer a different way to fix them, both equally valid. I think Lunsford's way is more fun, because I like collaborating with others ad bouncing ideas off of each other, at least in an informal setting, but I think for a writing center, or at least ours, North's way is better. One-on-one, improving the writer's skills, whereas Lunsford's ideas felt more like stages of planning out the writing, if that makes sense.
Question:
I was curious as to why there are still many issues surrounding writing centers, despite them seemingly being solved years ago. Is there a reason that there are still misunderstandings about writing centers, despite having solutions to that problem?
Comments
Post a Comment