As someone prepping to be an instructor/facillitator I was immediately drawn to the idea of a "studio" space. It may have been my background in studio art, which was very much loose, which is maybe the only word I can think of to descrivbe the difference between non-studio type classes.

For AL 201, I knew I didn't want to just "teach", maybe regardless of whether this was a pass/fail course. What I wanted to do was give people the opportunity to understand their writing process, on their own terms. A lofty goal indeed. But instead of looking at AL 201 as a bunch of misfit students who are not motivated, I decided to approach this course as a great space to engage in low-stakes studio work.

Teaching/Writing in Third Spaces immediately caught my attention. It seemed that the framework for why the authors chose to do the studio work seemed to be aligned with my values. They identified a problem of focusing on "errors and expectations" pg 4, rather than engaging them in recognizing and internalizing rhetorical and compisitional structuctures that they will encounter both in an academic setting and beyond. The book does this by focusing on process, but not just of one class, but of their entire course load. This would fit in great with AL 201, because it is not meant to be a stand-alone course, rather a supplement to IAH Tier II writing.

The book talks about production activities taking place simultaneously, and the instructor acting as a facilitator, managing the input of the students, discussions, and so on. Again, this describes AL 201 very well. Because each stufdent is taking a different class with differnt syllabus goals, dates, etc... it would be fruitless to expect everyone to be at the sample place. But that doesn't mean that people can't contrivute and offer feedback to each other at any stage of the writing process.

So the studio model offers a place for students to offer their work up to the group. A chance to ask for specific feedback, and a place to reflect to a group of peers other stuggles with their course-load.

The biggest thing I am taking away right now from her is the concept that "the current way of addressing 'error' is to assume the simplest (linguistic) cause, evidence suggests that ignorace of linguistic rules is not the cause, that there is a much more complex and complicated set of triggers behind the 'problems' (p.33)

This to me is the strength of the Writing Center as a place not to fix writing, but to help writers. What I mean is that to assume fixing your grammar is going to make a difference is just an assumption based mostly on what our eyes are looking at on the surface. But to spend time engaging the client in discussion can reveal much more complex triggers. At that point it is not as clear whether simply fixing grammar will make any lasting improvement on the writer. Easier said than done, because this assumes a neutral client who would be thrilled to be engaged in such a conversation. The reality, although not a majority seems to be that clients have an expectation. We as consultants should be ammeable to that conversation, while at the same time understanding, and trying to articulate what we see, from our experience, as some of the larger, more underlying problems. This during the best consultation is hard, maybe impossible, to do in an hour session. But I think to fall back on superficial grammar fixes to placate the client (and the consultant) in the moment does more harm in the long run to change the fundamental expectations that the problems are linguistic errors. This is not to say we should force our beliefs on a client, but to actively seek out dialogue with them to let them know the Writing Center's perspective, which is more than just saying "we don't fix grammar."

I have personally had successes and failures trying to articulate this. A great consultation a client and I may only get through 1-2 pages, when the intial expectation was 10. A unsuccessful session would be the client leaving feeling they haven't been "helped". These unsuccessful sessions are not collatoral damage to a higher goal, but moments to reflect and understand that the Writing Center itself exists within a complex institutional space that both affects the Writing Center and it's clients. That means we need to not have one model for working with clients, but multiple models, not based on stereotypes, but observation and discussion. Being able to capture these trends in clients is work that the Writing Center is in a unique place to do. It is our oblighation as a player in the instution to advocate on behalf of the students who seek help from us. I don't think we consider how much responsibility we have, nor do we consider that to not advocate on bahalf of these students, to be silent, is a form of acceptence that the institutional goals are acceptable.

This is not a revolt against any institution, but a realization that the role of the Writing Center can and should be more. To observe, discuss, identify and advocate the needs of our client base. What and inspiring reason to come to work knowing that what you are doing is directly leading to the benefit of not just your client, but the 40,000 strong each year decide to be a part of the Michigan State University community.