Ashleigh helping talk through the study process…

At the end of February, I observed Ashleigh helping a first-semester transfer student in a Holt course.  They had already had an invention session for a paper almost a month earlier– for this course on Islam.  Ashleigh had not taken the course, but she is the POL tutor interested in all things Mediterranean and Mid-East, and had some …similar… A&S courses under her belt.

The student was facing a mid-term the next week.   She and Ashleigh were reading the syllabus, which seemed to prompt them about the big picture: topics, readings. That’s a good way to think about reviewing: What have we covered?

Ashleigh: Are there any concepts you think are important?  …X, Y and Z.  some discussion, in which the student showed her nervousness about all the different readings.  She seemed overwhelmed, worried.

Ashleigh: When you read, can you figure out the main idea?  …We’re reading two books at a time…

Ashleigh: When you’re reading, think about “What is the question that the writer is trying to answer?”

Ashleigh: Don’t stress.  This weekend go over concepts.

Student: I’m going to go through all the articles, browse through, the intro/conclusion.  I will put it all together over the weekend.

Ashleigh did not have an appointment slot between the session and the test the next week, but seemed to say she’d be available to meet outside her hours.  She was encouraging her to meet again after she’d done all the reviewing and organizing they had spoken about for 20 minutes.  Also good strategy…to show Ashleigh her study tools, where she’d put together ideas from all the different sources, teased out the different themes, concepts, details. And talk about anything that was still hazy, confusing.

I was still hankering to see them dive into the content.  And use Ashleigh’s content expertise.  That could’ve happened while looking at the syllabus–Oh, that. What’s that about?  What’s the author’s take?  Who agrees with that?  Disagrees?  What about this?  How are these two, three, four parts related?

But she had not taken the course, so I’m not sure how easily she could have responded to the accuracy of what the student would have said.  But it would have gotten the session into some of the ‘beef’  of the course, and the student into moving along the process, not just talking about what she was going to do.  Maybe that’s all she wanted from Ashleigh?

 

Omar reading upside-down French, generated by an internet translator

There seem to be two types of sessions in foreign language tutoring: one helping students understand differences in grammar (remember Jane working with subjonctivos for the 100th time?) and the other, helping them with compositions they’ve had to write, using x number of vocabulary words, or this and that verb tense. To me, the first is much easier than the second. The errors in exercises are finite; tutors can see what students do and don’t understand about the principles behind the concept of this tense or that one. Students usually bring their textbooks to these sessions, so the tutor and student can look through to find how the book explains this or that.

Dealing with compositions is a whole ‘nother matter.   Last semester we saw Becky deal with a 101 composition that was written as if the student were in 301–perfect, with advanced verb tenses, etc.  Whaaa???

Omar’s predicament was a bit different.  His client didn’t bring anything but the paper: no books, no dictionaries, nada, rien.  She had a two-page double-spaced composition.  And hers was far from perfect.  He soon realized something.  “You put this through the word translator, didn’t you?” ….”How did you know?” she asked.   Ai yai yai.

Here’s how Omar spent the next 35 minutes:

La methode:

He had her read it out loud (to practice pronunciation, with Omar repeating words here and there).

He asked, (if it wasn’t quite idiomatic or the meaning was really unclear), “What do you want to say?”  “This is what it says,”  translating into English from the French she wrote.   Or assumed she wrote.

and then, “Can you change it?” or… “These are the choices.” (for some verb tense possibilities), “Choose one.”

All upside down, even writing on her paper.  Whoa.  (Apparently Omar has been tutoring other students for years, classmates as he finished assignments early, and was encouraged to help others.)

She was ready to help him summarize what they’d done at the end so he could fill out the form: “I had lots of problems with that,” pointing to her paper, which was bleeding with what Omar and she had written on it.

In our debriefing, Omar and I talked about getting a bit more systematic start to the session.  I suggested he read over the paper very quickly, not out loud.  And underline any problem areas quickly.  And think about the kinds of errors he’s noticing.  All in a couple minutes.  Then doing what he did (La Methode), but marking on the form the first instance of this or that… like

If  subject   verb,  subject verb (the actual example)                   (and another type to the right)      Ils doivent aller

and then another Word Forms  (l’)  etude  vs.  etudier                                                                                    Likewise over her for this kind of error

He would be building databases of examples from her own writing in different corners of the form,  with the corrections.  Categories that will help her understand and then remember better.   And the third error, maybe she’ll even be able to figure it out all by herself as she reads it outloud.  And the fourth.

And to talk about each time that the internet translator has screwed up royally.

Still a difficult task…

 

Finding the right mix in a philosophy tutoring session

When I approached Rob Hoffman about observing his Intro to Philosophy tutoring session, he said he would be trying to get his client to be more active (to rehearse) all the material they went over the day before. So from the outset, Rob’s goal was to get the client working with the material.  He signalled his intent several times throughout the session: “I want to make sure you’ve got the stuff we went over yesterday.” “Let’s try to get you to rehearse all this.” And asked pointed questions of the student as well: “What do you remember about Descartes’ position?” “That principle yesterday. Do you remember what it meant?”  Masterful.

But so was the student, who ended up asking Rob many more questions back, giving him some answers but mostly trying to get Rob to talk so he could take notes. “How is Plato’s argument different from Kant’s?” “He was more like a compatibleist (sp?) than a determinist?” ” What, give me an example?” “What’s a short definition?” “So what would the short definition be?”

The professor for this course does not allow students to see tutors for help on papers, so Rob often told the student that he couldn’t even address the topic with him, but could work with him on understanding the philosophers’ ideas, those of Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Descartes and Kant.

From my layperson’s perspective, I was really getting into the discussion, hearing what the student would read from his notes or the application questions he would pose to Rob: “The fact that you’re helping me and I’m using your knowledge. Is that free will (?) in (one of those philosopher’s) terms?” And of course listening to Rob explain–it was mesmerizing. But in our debriefing, Rob felt he was once again pulled into being a teacher, and was not able to reach the goal he’d set for the student–to get him to do more explaining, to rehearse some of these ideas and comparisons/contrasts so that he could use them more confidently in the paper.   He was also very disappointed that the student didn’t seem to have any firmer grasp of “who said what about whatever” than he had the day before.  And that he probably wasn’t going to do the reading, which was more accessible (i.e. not primary documents) than most philosophy textbooks.  He seemed very insecure about the material in this course (I can relate to that!), hence his unwillingness to rehearse.

But that’s just what he needed, so we talked about two ideas I had that might make the client in a session like this one more active:

1. Get the student to do a small section of reading in the session, together (one that he had pinpointed was very important, which he had done the day before). Prepare the student with some structure (look for x, y, z; notice a and b; find l, m and n) and even walk away for several minutes to let him do it. Then come back and see what he got, guide him in how to annotate and/or make notes, be the master(ful) reader/guide that the student needs. I think this is a good technique for many clients who are averse to doing the reading…sometimes it’s because they don’t know how to approach these more difficult texts or to make notes about them. Tutors can be guides in this important aspect of college work.

2. Set up a matrix or chart in which the student can make notes about all 5 philosophers, a summary sheet or two that consolidate all the information that I noticed was swirling around in the session, and that the student was taking notes on, but not necessarily in an organized way. The student could be in charge of writing after talking about it. And Rob could check what he’d written.

Thx., Rob.

 

Like pulling teeth: Julia H’s challenge

Julia Humphrey tutored a student today who was an outlier…way at the passive end of the active/passive continuum.  She came with the book.  But no notes.  No printed-out powerpoints. No flash cards (though these two she said were in her room).  She answered questions in monosyllables, until about the middle of the 40-minute session, where she ventured into phrases and simple sentences.  I was frustrated.  Julia was even moreso, of course.  After all, all I had to do was take notes, which after a bit turned into venting my own frustrations with this recalcitrant client: “Where are her notes? Why didn’t she bring her stuff?  She’s not writing anything down!”

So most of what Julia and I talked about afterward was how different she was from most other clients she’s had, and how to deal with the reluctant participant. I told Julia that this quiet client probably ended up quite satisfied with the session.  Passive students actually like it when they can just listen.  And she did participate a bit more at the end. But the bottom line was that she got Julia to do what she came for, I think: to do most of the work, to explain terms and effects and theories and give examples for all of them (which Julia did SO well.  I was captivated).  The student listened well, though we’re not sure how much she retained, since she wouldn’t give much back when asked.

If the student was really watching carefully, she would have seen a great model of reviewing from Julia: going through the book, looking at each graphic on the page, talking out loud about what it represented, searching for all the examples given in the surrounding paragraphs, connecting this page’s ideas with those of the previous three or four, or even the chapter or two before.

What Julia couldn’t model for her was comparing what was in the book with what was in the class notes she’d made or the powerpoints from the professor she said she printed out (both indications of what the professor thinks is most important).  She also couldn’t look at the flash cards that the student had supposedly made but left in her room.    Bummer.

I got the impression that the student had not really done much of the reading and hadn’t really made those flash cards, and if she had, they would have been very simplistic, maybe even from the glossary.  Not that helpful.  Or was I being too harsh?  I wondered aloud, with this astute PSY tutor, whether this student’s personality/learning style influenced her passivity?  Was she too timid to talk?  Is she one who takes much time to warm up to someone, to think through her answers?

We decided that a good thing to do with these reluctant clients is to make them more active from the get-go.  Here’s the list of what, in perfect 20-20 hindsight, Julia said she could have done to make this young woman be more engaged:  sit on the same side of the table with her, so they could look at the book together, neither one looking upside down; get her to read with Julia through passages in the book, to check her comprehension, to have her find what she thinks is important, and to verbalize what each graphic (visual summary of information) represents; to find all the examples in the text, see which ones make sense and discuss which do not (a major concern she voiced at the outset); have the student write down the terms/examples as they discussed them when looking through the book together; make a flash card or two as examples, even if she’d already done them, to get her to make them more sophisticated (with text and visuals and connections, etc.)

Would that student have liked that kind of session better?  Not sure.  But for long-term learning, it would have benefitted her more.  And we think she would have left feeling more confident of her knowledge.  And we would have felt much less frustrated.

 

micro-ing the macro w/John Folkerth

Or is that macro-ing the micro?  I’m only married to an economist…not one myself.  John isn’t majoring in economics, but as an IR major, he’s taken 203 (micro/macro) and has helped a bunch of students with that technical intro course.  (Also with the other ECO course he’s had, 202, Historical Perspectives.)

John had helped this client before; their rapport was great.  Sitting next to the client, with all her materials in front of her, John led her in a discovery process that underscored what she already knew and where she had to tweak her process.  She was very active, looking at her laptop (APLIA–which John says is the only book in the course) and her notes (she says, “This is the notes I have on that part,” when John shows her how to expand something, an explanation, on the APLIA screen.)  After they worked on a problem together, he showed her how to go through the APLIA explanation.  “Oh, we did that. Oh, that was stupid” (referring to something he had suggested they do).

Which brings me to what I really loved about John’s session.  He was honest with his client from the outset, saying this part of the course was really hard, that he’d had trouble (with “the tricky problems”), but that didn’t stop him; the two of them jumped right in to figuring it out.  She saw him work with her knowledge, guide her to where he already was, then work together in the “tricky” parts.

John just wrote in his self-evaluation (journal 4) that “(a)lthough they comprehend the concepts better, sometimes I feel I could do more to foster a greater feeling of independence with my clients. I have been working on some techniques that encourage the client to work through the economics equations while I simply guide them.“  Indeed.  He certainly has, and they showed.  He continued, “…but without them reading the book beforehand, it becomes difficult for me to foster an environment of independence.“ I have a feeling that this client had read the “book” (online APLIA) before, but maybe not.  What John did was to work alongside and guide the client in this challenging problem-solving, and go to the APLIA explanation with her to see what they had done right and where they had gone wrong. That made “reading the book” incredibly real, concrete and meaningful.  I know she will never skip over those explanations again.

His questions guided her in good problem-solving: “The best way is to write down what you are given.” “So what would you start with as your baseline?” “So we’re going to start with….” (He used that technique from time to time, starting the sentence and letting her finish.)  “You would expect consumption to be what?” (interpreting something on the x/y axis)  … and later in the session, “So what about trying to calculate MPC?”  “So let’s write it out… YOU write it…”

After they’d figured out the tricky problem, he asked, “Do you want to do this one again, with different values?”  And near the very end, “let’s review.  How would you find the (insert ECO speak term here)….?”  Step 8 of the Tutor Cycle, methinks.  And a great role model for ECO students.

 

Critiquing compositions with Kon (Becky…Rebequita)

Sitting in on foreign language sessions is often a study of grammar, with conceptual pairs that are hard for us non-native speakers to grasp (remember Jane Lombardi’s subjonctivo vs. indicativo session?).  Then there are the harder ones: looking over a student’s composition for errors.  And that’s what Becky was doing with her SPN 101 client.

This was no average 101 student.  She’d taken two years in h.s., then two years of Italian (very much related in structures and vocabulary),  but for some reason was in SPN 101.  Why?  I consulted Mae Fitchett down the hall who knows these policies like the back of her hand: any course at any level counts for credit, but one semester of intermediate lg. is required.  So this student wanted to get a really good review, and probably a good grade.  But still has to go through an intermediate course.

With her background, I wasn’t surprised that her composition was written in a level way above 101.  But it was also her method: She’d written it all in English first. She had it with her and was translating her Spanish sentences into English as she worked with Becky.  Some of the structures in it were ones Becky was just getting to in SPN 210G (past subjunctive (?), like “If I had known, I would have done something different.”)  Hmmm…

Becky was faced with a composition that was 99% clean.  In the cases where there was a potential error, Becky was great at asking questions to get her to think about the concept, like “So this is feminine. What would the ending be?” (That’s a 101 topic.) “Are you trying to say…?” (That’s when she pulled out her composition in English.)

I piped up then to ask why she did it that way, why she didn’t try to write it in Spanish, since really her proficiency level would support that way of composing.  This led us three into her reasons for being in 101 to begin with, her uneven abilities: fantastic pronunciation, pretty good listening abilities, less that adequate levels of speaking.  It’s normal to have that imbalance, I said, but forcing herself to write and to speak in Spanish is the only way to improve those levels. Now that I think of it, I don’t remember if all three of us talked about all of that, or not…

After she left, Becky and I talked about the differences between a straight grammar point session and a composition one.  And how strange this one was.  And how I might have written on the form the disparity between this level of Spanish and some of the structures the student had used, as a CYA.  To point out to the student AND to the professor that she was using structures she had not learned (the client said she looked them up in her book, in the back.  We didn’t have her show us, but we maybe we should have.  (Hindsight is 20/20.)  Would past subjunctive be in a 101 book? Or was she looking at a verb book?  Or the internet?  Or a translation site on the internet?   Becky and I looked at the honor code for Spanish that is in all syllabi, also posted in the HUB.  Puzzling.  Disconcerting.

For future reference for Becky when dealing with normal 101, 102 and 110 compositions, I shared my method in the Writing Center when working with both native and non-native speakers of English.  I underline any potentially problematic areas while I’m reading it (silently), then scan those for the patterns that have emerged…which Becky said were often: agreement, verb tenses and incorrect conjugations (endings), sentence structure & order, accents, por/para, etc.  Then prioritize: “I see more errors in agreement than the others, so let’s tackle them first.  Here’s the first one.”  And then the whole questioning, analyzing, figuring out what’s wrong and fixing it routine.  Maybe doing it for the student if s/he seems flummoxed, but then going to the next instance and having the student try it.

Categorizing.  Questioning.  Modeling if necessary.  Continuing through other examples of the same error.

Compositions are harder than discrete grammatical points, IMHO.  But so many foreign language courses require them.  And they do get the student to be much more adventurous, more “productive” with the language, which is so necessary for their growth.

Thanks for letting me sit in on a very unusual session, Becky.  Here’s hoping for more normal 101 compositions en el futuro.

 

The grace of Grace in the essence of style

Most of Grace Moore’s tutoring notes forms for Editing Essentials, a required course for English majors and writing minors, look like those from foreign language courses, except they are all in English.  Lots of diagramming, parts of speech, explication of pairs like clauses/phrases, indirect/direct objects and even more obscure terminology–the kind that warms the hearts of only certain types: grammar queens and kings, linguists, and, as Dr. Laws hopes, aspiring writers who want to improve their style.

Which is what Grace’s session was about, sort of.  She was helping a student with a presentation that she would be giving the next day–on style.  Style reminds me of critical thinking in that it can include so many things, and so much has been written on all its different aspects.  So Grace spent a lot of time asking questions about how she was defining style, what elements she had decided to include,  how she was illustrating each element and what activities she had in mind for her classmates.  It was as if she was helping her with a paper (which Grace does in most of her sessions at TJ’s, as a writing consultant).

The grace of Grace lies (lay, past tense) in how nicely she was able to give the student a lot of control over how the session went while still getting her to narrow and refine her ideas and the presentation structure, which the student needed.  “Do you want to go through it and talk about it with me?” “When you say sentence variety do you mean length or form?”  “What do you mean by word order variation?” (She answered, “Yoda.”) “Do you have any more ideas about what to talk about?” “So what else?”  “Do you have any other questions for me?”

Grace’s session was low-key but not low-energy, and quite productive, for Grace’s client giving the presentation and for those involved in it the next day in Dr. Laws’ class.

 

Jane’s 100th time with Spanish subjunctivos

When I see pink forms for Spanish tutors, chances are the topic is either preterito vs. imperfecto OR subjunctive vs. indicative.  Both are areas of Spanish that are different from English, so they’re confusing.  Both involve understanding a concept (the function…when/why it is used), the grammatical form it takes (the …duh…form), and then applying it.  So I wasn’t surprised to see that Jane’s client was dealing with the subjunctive mood, for SPN 210G.  Jane was expert at getting him to express his understanding of both form and function and then try it out.

She was working with a repeat client, and was so proud to report to me (in front of him) that he’d gotten a 96 on his last quiz (great way to encourage him at the outset, Jane!).  So this was a super-prepared and motivated student.  Indeed, he came with very specific questions, notes he had taken AFTER class, a specific list of what he needed to do for the next day’s class.  Wow.

Jane’s method was to quiz him (“What do you know?”) about the concept and the form (writing down on her tutoring notes what he said), and then dive into an exercise from the book, one that he chose, b/c they had done it in class but he didn’t really get it.   Her questions were getting him to think out loud:  “Why is that?”  “Why did you use subjunctive (or indicative)?”  “Are there any indicators for the subjunctive?”  “Is it a stem-changing verb?” “Does it have two different subjects and verbs and QUE, like ‘I am scared that it costs too much’?”

She also had him read the sentences in Spanish and then, only with the sentences that he got wrong or was unsure of, she translated into English.  This is a nice use of native vs. second language, as in the example I gave above.  When they got to the second exercise in the book, when she asked him why he chose the subjunctive…”Because all the answers are in the subjunctive, “  she quickly suggested changing to a different exercise, so he could really test his understanding of the differences.

Near the end of the 30-minute app’t., Jane asked him to summarize for her… and he came up with a little different list than he had started out with, adding the “2 subjects, 2 verbs + QUE indicator.”  Oh yeah.   Sounds like steps 7 & 8 in the Tutor Cycle to me.  Bravo, senorita.  Maestra.

 

Prea’s peppy pre-writing prep for Buddhism paper

I observed the first half of Prea’s hour-long appointment with a Religion student just after Aimee’s CHM session. Very different task (an 8-page paper assignment), very different material (Buddhism, from original and secondary (I think) texts), very different engagement on the student’s part (much quieter than Aimee’s CHM client). From my layperson’s perspective, though, I came away from both feeling more informed about Lewis Dot structures and Buddhism. That’s one thing I love about working up here, and observing you guys.

Prea was peppy maybe because she is, in general, but also because her client was not. At first I wondered just how much he had gotten from the course, and if he’d just come so that the tutor could tell him what to write. Very laid-back, passive. He had the prof’s handout with possible paper topics…so Prea asked him which one he was more passionate about, and he chose the one he said he knew the most about.

So Prea started trying to get him to talk about what he remembered: “What do you remember?” “Do you remember how that (reincarnation) works?” How do you know you have atman?” “How does the self relate to reincarnation?” “Karma, yes, which is….?” He got to searching through his notes, looking at a long handout, for answers.

Prea talked about how to structure the paper (1st 3 pages explanation; last 2 your observations, what is puzzling, strange.) And she gave him advice on how to find what to write, in both parts of the paper. (These are her comments, paraphrased).  You say it is “interesting.” Think about what is so different from what you’re used to in Christianity. What makes sense, what do you disagree with, have problems understanding? In describing, in the first part, you can say what it IS and what it IS NOT.  And… You should just talk about the second model, or maybe the third, since you have three more pages to write.

I left after the first 30 minutes and assume that the session just got more detailed, more into what was in the handouts, in the Upanishads… and what he had in his notes (pretty sketchy, he admitted, and he asked her if he could look at a classmate’s notes). Just now, a day later, I spied Prea with the same client in the Hub. I assume he’s come with a draft, since the paper was due pretty soon.

Good work in getting this student on the right track, Prea, engaging this freshman in thinking about this very different material, finding out what he knew, elaborating on it yourself, then sending it back to him with questions. Yes!

 

Watching Aimee’s expert questioning & hinting

Observing Aimee (BIO tutor but also peer mentor for the CHM RCC class) with a repeat client was a real gas–or solid–or liquid?  The client was inCREdibly active, writing down those visual diagrams for the Lewis Dot (I had to write that down) Structures chapter, thinking out loud as she wrote, thumbing through the (very expensive I’m sure) CHM textbook, saying, “Was that 7, or 6?” by which she meant chapter.  In our debriefing session immediately afterwards, I complimented Aimee on getting that very active (almost frenetic) client to slow down, to think carefully about what she was doing, where she was looking, why she was using this or that table, what the numbers were showing her, etc. etc.

“I try to give my clients as little as possible,” she told me.  We talked about her pattern of tutor-client talk: They “struggle,”, I give them a “clue,” they get it, then they struggle some more, and so it goes.  Here are some of those questions/clues/guides, verbatim:

“What are you getting those numbers for?”

What is this …..showing you?”

“Does this (Lewis Dot?) structure give you anything?”

And some comments/questions from her client:

“Should I do the dot things? Or draw it out first?  I’m so visual.”

“I’m trying to find a way for me…his (the prof’s) way, visual, or the book’s way” (to which Aimee answered with a question, “Which way is better for you?”)

Lots of Aimee’s questions/comments started with “So, ….”  Slowing the process down, getting her to think carefully.

Aimee told me that she realized that this student started out as a very quiet client at the beginning of term, with few ideas on what to do, where to start, what to reference.   Now she’s got lots of ideas, and Aimee is trying to sort of rein her in, to get her to be more disciplined and efficient in choosing her next step.   MASTERFUL~~~~~~~  Yay!

 

Margaux’s math session: “So, now what do you do?”

That’s one thing I noticed about Margaux as she helped her student with problems from the GMAT prep book. She often started her comments/questions with “So…” “So, what are they asking?” “So we know they’re asking about time…but what about cost?” Or some variations, like, “Can you say really quickly how you might work it out?” (Isn’t that step 8 of the Tutor Cycle?) and responding to the oft-asked questions, “Am I right?” and “Is this right?” with “It could be. We’ll find out.” Getting the student to do most of the thinking, assessing the next steps, seeing if she ’s right or wrong–making her more of an independent learner.

Margaux’s student client was especially good at thinking out loud as she went through the steps. I commented/complimented her on this, and she said she thought Margaux had helped her develop that in previous sessions. It certainly helps Margaux see what she’s doing, where she’s going in the right and in the wrong directions. We know that many college students who drop out of (i.e. not persist in) science, math and engineering majors complain about professors working at the board, not talking through what they are doing. These think-alouds are good for the tutor and student client alike… and Margaux’s session was a model to follow in this respect, too.

 

Margaret’s “paper” sessions & forms

I’d seen Margaret’s very thorough peer tutoring notes forms for papers in CMC 100 and 200–with comments on themes in the paper, the complex thesis using them, the hook and conclusion, and formatting details. I was curious to see how she managed the reading, writing and talking in a session, so I observed her on Monday.

I was struck by how Margaret connected both with the client (“Oh yeah, that was a film class we had together”) and with the ideas she saw in the paper (“Dr. TIllman will love that.”) The client asked how to paraphrase, and Margaret showed her how she was doing it in her draft (“I see you’re using a lot of theory” and “You take a quote, introduce it, state it, restate it in your own words”). Lots of give and take, as Margaret made her way through the draft, section by section, reading silently but then commenting on this or that, reading a bit out loud, asking questions to get the client talking.

In our debriefing, Margaret said this client’s paper was not as far along as others she’d seen, so she had to spend more time looking at the themes the client had written in the beginning of the paper–the big picture. And the discussion of what was before and after a quote was to help her, since she had to do the same with the rest of the quotes she had in her outline–to make them her own. She had to spend more time with what the client would do in the 24 hours before the paper was due than she had with other people in the class, tweaking what they had already written.

I said I thought her use of the form was masterful–writing a bit about each little discussion before moving on the the next section. Thanks, Margaret! You certainly earned your $6.79 that hour.

BTW, I gave Margaret the top copy of the sit-in form, which has some suggestions about what to look for, but also has lots of space to write whatever you want. If you observe someone, pls. use this form. It’s in the bottom left of the mail cubbies.