In our system, DIs have a very similar role to that of a mentor in a writing center. We go over each of their drafts, pointing out errors, and trying to help the student to learn from their mistakes. Our comments are similar to those that one would receive in a writing center, but without the benefit of dialogue. Since we can't meet face to face with a student, it's difficult to tell if they ever really comprehend the comments left for them. Frequently when I am grading, I come across something that is incredibly difficult to explain in writing. Some errors are just hard to do that with. That is where a writing center can really be helpful, since the mediators are there, with the student, able to communicate and ask follow up questions.
As for the Ma and Pa Kettle article, the computer system does have some benefits. Since the classroom instructors can see which types of errors are frequently cited in their student's work, it helps them to know what to cover in class. The only issue is if the DIs are properly marking the errors, and how detailed they need to be. But, if a workgroup discusses this, that problem can largely be avoided. A workgroup can decide to mark all of the comma errors on a certain assignment, for example. This ability to automatically track error is a great strength to TOPIC/ICON.
2 comments:
We need a dialogue once in awhile. Good point about tracking errors, though.
I agree that the role of a DI is similar to that of a writing center tutor. Nice points about error; some are more difficult to teach how and why to avoid than others.
Post a Comment