Weston 1

Bryndahl Weston
Professor Brown
WRD 395
19 November 14

Tutoring Philosophy Statement

Tutoring is much like child rearing. The parents must read, listen to, and research, a
plethora of ideas, theories, and methods for everything from diet and exercise to in utero music
and language learning. This is all in an attempt to identify and decide upon the single best
method to rear a healthy, well-adjusted, and self-sufficient child. What is more, through the
rush of helpful hinderers offering advice (everyone thinks they are an expert), the parents alone
must absorb the mountain of information to determine what is to be discarded and what is to
be incorporated into the parenting philosophy for their particular child. So, too, must a tutor
wade through a morass of literature, articles, theories, and studies, not to mention the wealth
of workshops, seminars, and face-to-face dialogues that seem to effortlessly and spontaneously
spring forth when two or three tutors find themselves with even a moment to engage in
conversation, in an attempt not only to identify but to also embrace the self-identified key
tenets that will come to comprise the tutors tutoring philosophy.
Similar to the parents who decide which data presents the basis for a sustainable
parenting philosophy, I have identified a handful of articles and related theories from whence

Weston 2
my tutoring philosophy is composed. I have picked, a la cart, from the concepts of mitigating
language, incremental theory, person versus process-based praise and criticism, personal
agency and self-efficacy, dynamic versus fixed intellect, importance of providing opportunity,
and open dialogue to craft my tutor philosophy. Akin to the parents alignment with the
metaphor, my penultimate goal as a tutor is to provide the tools, experience, constructive
feedback, dialogue, and overt means for development or if need be discovery of personal
responsibility for the sole reason of guiding students to the self-realization that they can do
more than they think they can. I hope they leave with confidence and a feeling of hope; more
than this, I want them to have a moment of relief when they realize they can, and will, actually
complete the assignment to the best of their ability.
This gestalt moment is my greatest desire for writers, because it exemplifies an internal
dialogue of confidence, belief, and trust in the self that the student will take with them and can
employ in any number of extant situations. Like the temporary guardian, tasked with forging a
self-reliant individual with the character to become a productive member of society and the
emotional wherewithal to be happy while doing so, through the childhood years of fable and
leading by example through the adolescence years of tough love and letting go, even if the
student will never love writing, I hope that after our appointment they can better navigate the
present, as well as any future, writing-related task with a distinct lack of fear and panic
buttressed by a belief in his or her ability. The journey is truly as important as the destination.
Speaking of which, some journeys begin at the beginning and some at the end; still
others begin with an idea. Thus, this journey begins with the concept of self-efficacy, also

Weston 3
known as personal agency. This is the notion that every individual has the capacity for
producing a desired effect or reaching a specified result. Writers, and children alike, are like
clay; they begin unmolded, but intrinsically contain the material necessary to create something.
What that something is, be it great or small, is dependent upon the creativity, dedication, and
will of the clay. However, clay that is not yet aware of its potential and cannot spontaneously
achieve self-efficacy or personal agency. It must first be molded by the hands of another, one
who introduces spatial boundaries, social mores, personal limits, and the self-centered
knowledge that one has both the means and the responsibility for the ultimate shape, dcor,
and presence of ones clay. These hands are most often those of parents, teachers, and tutors.
Every project has an infrastructure. Be it a marketing proposal, academic paper,
architectural masterpiece, artistic endeavor, raising and shaping a world citizen, or guiding and
encouraging a writer fledging or master in the pursuit of better writing. To this end, I relate
to Haring-Smiths article, Changing Students Attitudes, in that I agree an infrastructure must
first be in place, and that all faculty must at least acknowledge if not actively promote
learning to write through hands-on activity (Haring-Smith 123). I recall learning to drive; and,
the simulator was obviously not real. As a result, not only was it difficult for me to take those
lessons seriously, I was also incapable of applying them to real world situations. When all of the
book learning, lecture, and simulator exercises came together was when I sat behind the
wheel of a vehicle and realized I was responsible for my life as well as the lives of those in the
vehicle with me. Likewise, when I tutor, I give the tutee every possibility to drive. In fact, I
insist upon it. Further, I contemplate how best to promote personal responsibility without
being condescending or patronizing. My answer, and a component of my tutoring philosophy,

Weston 4
is to promote active participation from the writer. This means I will oft times be heard telling a
student, Youre driving! as I push away from the computer, leaving them room to take
control, learn from doing, and (hopefully) enable their own coming together of various
elements. Part of this learning experience is determining how to weigh information and how to
decide what is important and what is not.
Like any individual, parent, tutor, or student, faced with a plethora of datum, one will
ultimately decide to keep some and leave the rest. Interestingly, it is the material left by the
wayside which is often the means by which a future concept finds a receptive mind in lieu of a
closed one. I find this to be true of my own experience. Reading Sommers article, Responding
to Student Writing, left me with two distinct impressions. The first is the wondrous realization
that there is a reason to grading beyond right or wrong (Sommers 148). The second, and
more germane to my tutoring philosophy, is the realization of a paradigm shift in writing
education; offering assistance while composing as opposed to after completion is both the
teaching method de jour and the antithesis to how I was taught (Sommers 149). I found myself
wondering if this kinder, gentler, way promotes strong writers or if it does a long-term
disservice to them to alleviate a short-term discomfort? Even if my perspective is permanently
skewed because of how I was taught, I found this approach to be data I would discard.
However, because I read Sommers article and thought about the ideas contained
therein before deciding they were not a complimentary fit with my tutoring philosophy, I was
inherently more receptive to MacLellans article, The Role of Praise in Motivating Students, and
the concepts of dynamic versus fixed intellect and praising or critiquing the process versus the

Weston 5
writer. I am categorically a firm proponent of incremental theory; I believe ones ability is an
ever increasing repertoire of skills and knowledge effected through ones instrumental
behaviour (MacLellan 198). While I shall endeavor to regard any conflicting theory with civility
if not outright politeness, I will never accept either that intelligence is fixed and finite or that it
is unevenly distributed throughout the population (MacLellan 198). I believe the former is an
intrinsic and inviolable aspect of being human and that the latter is a self-fulfilling prophecy of
victimization.
That being said, I understand that I will work with writers, both in my capacity as a tutor
and as a fellow student, and as such must be cognizant of the fixed entity theory as well as how
it might manifest. This is one reason I believe so vehemently that responsibility for a project
must remain solely the originators burden. Despite how counter intuitive it feels, many a
parent would agree that some of lifes lessons must simply be experienced by the child; no
amount of safeguards will protect the child; and, in fact, they might inadvertently put the issue
at further risk. However, I do believe the risks in life, and their associated growing pains, can be
mitigated.
To this end, I employ process praise and criticism rather than person praise or criticism.
As MacLellans article postulates, person praise and criticism provides a global evaluation of the
students performance personally. Conversely, process praise and criticism places the
attention on the specifics of what is incomplete with a task and applicable feedback is directed
at the related effort or strategy employed by the student (MacLellan 200). I look at intelligence
and ability as a vehicle. Every vehicle leaves the lot with the same amount of gasoline. The

Weston 6
miles per gallon achieved by each driver depends, at least in part, on driving technique, quality
of gasoline purchased, superfluous weight in the vehicle, and (theoretically) at what level the
tank is kept.
If this metaphor is applied to students, each has an inherent ability that will either
blossom with intent and practice or languish through bad habits and carelessness. It is not my
place to lecture anyone on the vagaries of leaving the line in ten seconds or less; nor is it
incumbent upon me to point out what I perceive as the destructive cycle of a student. What I
can, and will, do is keep the criticism constructive and neutral process based and the praise
genuine. I must confess that while I strive for process based praise, I do occasionally slip in
person based praise to build confidence.
In moderation, I see person-based praise as a form of mitigating. This concept, as
explored in the John Beans article, Writing Comments on Students Papers, posits that one
need not be heartless to be effective. More precisely, mitigating comments are those that
buffer a students anger, or mitigate feelings of inadequacy, by adhering to a framework of
positive presentation (Bean 320). There is an old adage that good rulers should be firm but fair.
I see this as the flagship of mitigating ones feedback to a student. I can delve into technique,
content, and plans for next steps with efficacy and resultant revision without bullying or
extorting feelings of personal attack. To be clear, mitigating does not change what I will say,
but it does temper how I will say it. Parents, if not experts, are veterans of this minute detail.
How many times has a parent expressed to an irascible child that while the child is always

Weston 7
loved, the parent really does not like them at that particular moment? I can vividly recall that
very statement being uttered by my first step-mother.
Now, years later, that experience has come to represent for me the epitome of processbased feedback. Lest I be thought cold-hearted or suffering from a dearth of adult support in
my life, allow me here to divulge the mainstay for my forays into person-based praise; they are
a result of a conscientious martial arts instructor. During a particularly grueling class, in which I
and several other students were flagging, the instructor strode purposely to the fore of the
room and firmly stated that we could all do more than we think we can. No comment was
made regarding our lack of endurance or stamina, nor was the quality of our technique called
into question. Instead we were provided with a moment of, admittedly ambiguous, personal
praise. While in retrospect I realize the statement was fairly neutral, it felt very personal at the
time. And, in fact, it has adhered to my psyche and serves as an internal reminder when I think
I am out of energy, beyond resources, or otherwise unable to continue, and acts as my personal
gadfly reminding me that I can do more than I think I can.
To borrow from a tired old clich, one can lead a horse to water, but one cant make
em drink. So, too, with students of any ilk, one can provide the opportunity for growth and
experience, but one cannot force the student to learn. I could have ignored my martial arts
instructor and continued blindly struggling; or, as I did, I could trust him and his judgment of my
ability and forge ahead. My focus is on presenting students with opportunities to become their
own agents of change. Instead of a dojo or family, I work within the confines of a writing
center; and, I applaud writing centres and the myriad methods of tutoring presented therein,

Weston 8
but it seems that too much emphasis is placed on why they are needed, instead of addressing
what students can do to be proactive (North 437).
Echoing Norths axiom, from his article The Idea of a Writing Center, the penultimate
goal of a writing center is to produce better writers, not better writing (North 438), and I
feel strategic person-based comments (be they feedback or criticism) applied with a wealth of
process-based comments will engender both the external learning environment as well as the
internal locus for necessary reception of material and retention of same. Within the framework
of what North argues are the two most powerful contemporary perspectives regarding the
instruction of writing, that being that writing should be approached as a process and the
resultant curricula should be student-centered (North 438), lays the secret to, the magic of,
both parenting and tutoring, namely that individuals have no investment in their ignorance,
and can often be educated (North 433).
Returning to the metaphor of child rearing, growing up at least the physical aspects of
it is most definitely a process. And many a parent will lament, some wistfully and with tired
resignation and others cheerfully and with deliberate abandon, that when one has a child ones
life revolves around said offspring at least for the first several years, while the child has not
the necessary skills for survival. While writing in and of itself may rarely present a life or death
dun, dun, dun! scenario, it is arguably the lifeblood of adult life. One must have at minimum
a cursory mastering of writing to complete job or rental applications, let alone the greater
ability required for business, entertainment, or politics. So, as a parent who insists a
recalcitrant child learn formal dining manners, in case [they] need them when [they] are

Weston 9
older, so, too, will the tutor present a plethora of techniques, comments, feedback, praise, and
criticism to aid in the gestation of the writers self and future ability.
One must recall that as the adage, out of the mouths of babes, from whence surprisingly
astute observations or serious proclamations are emitted, the opportunity to talk with
students, to foster dialogue, is not only the lifeblood of the writing center (North 443), but also
in my considered opinion the crux of tutoring, and certainly of my tutoring philosophy. I
believe in dialogue; there is nothing that cannot be discussed. By extension, there is nothing
that cannot be written about nor read. Writing involves dialogue. As a writer as well as a
trained tutor, I have knowledge of and experience with talking and listening about writing
(North 441).
This ability coupled with genuine desire is part of what buoys a writing centre. It also offers
a counterpoint to the stress of sometimes discordant voices struggling for recognition
within a writing center; expressions of self that can bombard a tutor, and threaten to subsume
the learning environment cultivated within the writing centre. When the focus of tutoring thus
threatens to overwhelm who and why one is here, it may be helpful to remember that the
point is to engage the student in the process of inquiry and active learning (Haring-Smith 336).
As many a parent will likely attest to, the counting to ten rule is as much for them as it is for the
child. After all, those bundles of exploratory energy and delight can also be too closely related
repellant elements of ones own personality, experience, or ability.
It is said children are the best and the worst of their parents. My tutoring philosophy is
metaphorically akin to being my child; and, as such it combines the best and the worst of my

Weston 10
perceptions, ideas, theories, and overall tutoring philosophy. For example, returning to
Sommers article, I begin to understand how revising, a process I intrinsically follow and thus
likely take for granted, can be a great tool; that is, if provided with competent and intelligent
commentary (Sommers 149 - 154). Not unlike parents whose universal desire for their
offspring is happiness, I have realized that what I ultimately want for my child, and the writers
I work with as a tutor, is opportunity. If not specifically for revision, or any other tenet, idea,
theory, concept, or way, then I tutor for the opportunity to develop the thought process behind
it (Sommers 156).
Like parents who hope they have imparted the ideals, mores, ethics, and raw material to
develop a strong personal philosophy based upon mutual respect, integrity, and honesty, as
they watch their child leave the nest after a scant childhood and adolescence, I would like
students to realize, and believe, that they can do more than they think they can. Reminiscent
of lyrics from the song, Forever Young:
And when you finally fly away
I'll be hoping that I served you well
For all the wisdom of a lifetime
No one can ever tell (Cregan, Dylan, and Savigar),
parent and tutor alike, both hope that they have instilled their charge with the scope of
knowledge to enter the world to live a happy, healthy, and productive life. For myself as the
tutor, I aspire to being the means by which writers develop self-efficacy as well as recognize the
importance of personal agency, all the while promoting personal responsibility. Similarly, I

Weston 11
abjure the idea that students have a finite value of intelligence; and, instead, embrace the
concept of incremental theory and the possibility for infinite growth and experience. Likewise, I
reject the idea of fixed, and instead embrace dynamic, intellect. Believing one has a fixed
capacity for intelligence does not allow for the clay of ones self to break the mold and achieve
his or her potential. Conversely, adhering to the idea of dynamic intellect brooks no argument
for self-creating, and thus self-fulfilling, prophecies of victimization.
It is not enough to theorize, one must also put said theory into practice. To this end,
open dialogue is crucial; for, it is through the vehicle of dialogue that every facet of writing can
be explored. Verily, said dialogue is but the verbal manifestation of writing, and as such is
fundamental to the long-term development and health of same. Further, the conscientious and
considered use of mitigating conversation can repudiate feelings of failure, angst, or frustration
through genuine praise and comments. These redress of feelings of personal attack by
remanding the focus of constructive criticism to process-based, rather than person-based,
allows for the continued belief that one can do more than one thinks one can.

Weston 12
Works Cited
Bean, John C. "Writing Comments on Students' Papers." Engaging Ideas Chapter 16: 317-36.
Print.
Cregan, Jim, Bob Dylan, and Kevin Savigar. "Forever Young." AZ Lyrics. Ed. Ram's Horn Music et
al. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rodstewart/foreveryoung.html>.
Haring-Smith, Tori. Changing Students' Attitudes. Ed. Susan H. McLeod and Margot Soven.
Newbury Park: Sage, 1992. Print.
MacLellan, Effie. "Academic achievement The role of praise in motivating students." Active
Learning in Higher Education 6.3 (2005): 194-206. Print.
North, Stephen M. "The Idea of a Writing Center." College English 46.5 (1984): 433-46. Print.
Sommers, Nancy. "Responding to Student Writing." College Composition and Communication
33.2 (1982): 148-56. Print.