April 20, 2016: Tutoring observation #2

For my second tutoring observation, I sat in on a session yesterday afternoon between PWR lecturer Erik Ellis and a student working on a research proposal for a PWR 2 course. The session began with the student orienting Erik E. to his topic and to the broad categories in which he had grouped the sources listed in his research proposal. Importantly, the student already had instructor comments on the proposal and was thinking about next steps. I noted that Erik E. registered these as something to look at when he asked the student what other specific aspects of the proposal he wanted feedback about. The student's proposed topic, the philosophical implications of a particular videogame, sounded very expansive, and the instructor comments suggested some concern about scope. I noted, however, Erik E. did not follow up on this concern in a critical or negative way. He let the student talk, sometimes at length, and occasionally interjected with questions along the lines of "How many sources do you have?", "How much can you cover in the scope of this proposal?", "Is that the aspect that interests you?", and "How much of the rest of it do you think you'd change if you wanted to emphasize that aspect more?" These questions were effective in guiding the student toward doing the limiting work himself. In the course of the session, the student moved from expressing a very general interest in philosophy and humanity as expressed in the videogame to a more specific interest in agency and the freedom the player had or didn't have to act in the game.

Erik E. maintained a personally reserved but intellectually engaged demeanor throughout the session, and I noted several techniques that he used to encourage active participation on the student's part in addition to asking open-ended questions. When he asked, for instance, "How many sources do you have?", this functioned as a prompt for the student to count, although Erik E. could have counted sources listed in the proposal himself. The student's answers to questions were sometimes involved, and Erik E. used engaged body language, nodding and leaning forward while always looking either at the student or his writing, as well as verbal cues registering engagement or understanding to indicate that he was following along as the student spoke (e.g. "Sounds interesting," "Yeah," "Hmmm," and "Great topic"). About 10 minutes into the session, after the project had been laid out and the central issues seemed relatively clear, Erik E. paused to read the student's conclusion, which the student had expressed concern about at the start, more carefully, in addition to reviewing the instructor comments. I note that before doing this he indicated to the student that he was going to take a few minutes to read the material.