finding a middle ground to suit the writer's needs

For me, Brooks’ “Minimalist Tutoring” and Shamoon and Burns’ “A Critique of Pure Tutoring,” establish the two extremes of a consultation theory spectrum. While Brooks encourages writing consultants to let the writers do most of the work during a consultation, Shamoon and Burns suggest that the consultants must (essentially) do most of the work by demonstrating how to fix the writer’s mistakes. Each approach offers strategies that may very well prove effective. However, I feel that with most writers, a combination of minimalist and directive approaches should be used to best suit the needs of the writer.

In the teaching world, instruction is approached as follows: prepare the student for a task, provide the assistance the student will need to complete the task, have the student reflect on the task. I feel that all three of these phases of teaching apply directly to the discussion on minimalism.

In a purely minimalist consultation, the writer is given minimal preparation for the task of revising their paper and writing in general. In a purely directive consultation, the writer is given so much assistance that they have little opportunity to reflect or discover on their own. To learn effectively, a student should be appropriately prepared and assisted, but given opportunities to think through problems on their own. A balance must exist between the consultant assisting the writer and preparing the writer to assist themselves.

My experience in classrooms and observing in the Writing Center suggests that applying these theories to practice requires constant attention to the abilities of the writer, or in Bartholomae’s terms, the writer’s thought process. Evaluating what a writer knows about complex sentences, for example, helps determine whether or not the writer botched a sentence because they didn’t understand the grammatical rules involved or because they were having difficulty articulating their idea clearly. If the writer does not understand the grammatical rules involved, then the consultant should instruct them on the rules, and then check for the writer’s understanding by having them demonstrate. If the writer was having trouble articulating their idea, then the consultant should investigate as to whether the writer recognizes the sentence as unclear. If the writer doesn’t recognize then some direct instruction is needed. However, if the writer does recognize, then a discussion should follow in which the consultant prompts the writer to better articulate. In both of these scenarios, a combination of minimalist and directive strategies are used to best fit the needs of the writer.

Although much can be learned about how to approach writing consultations from both Brooks and Shamoon/Burns’ theories, in practice, no theory is a perfect fit for every student and thus formulaic methods of instructions will not work for everyone. Theory works to prepare the consultant, but when it comes to the real world, the needs of the student drive the approach.