As you may already know, Professional Development workshops have been part of working as a Writing Center tutor since forever. Topics are always timely, relevant, and useful. Some examples include reading academic articles about tutoring, being trained on revised practices and policies, or learning about a new rhetorical genre which was the topic of the latest Professional Development.
This past Winter Quarter, tutors were exposed to the genre of Prior Learning Assessment (PLA), a process by which students transitioning from professional work to higher education are offered course credit for professional experiences that meet the goals of a particular course.
As part of the assessment, writers must pay $150 to submit a “Course-Match Essay” (CME) that connects their professional experience to learning outcomes of the specific course and shows the writer’s knowledge of theoretical concepts that have driven their professional experience. Students often bring their CME to the Writing Center for feedback.
After reading and researching the PLA genre for the Winter Quarter Professional Development, my small group and I agreed that these appointments feel high-risk.
The Weight of Expectations
I can feel the financial weight of this Course Match Essay whenever I think about PLA appointments, which I don’t actually encounter very frequently. I can remember how during the only PLA appointment in my five-year tutoring history, the context and implications of the writer’s work were sheepishly glossed over by both the writer and I.
Instead of discussing the nature and expectations of the assignment, we essentially treated the appointment as a regular one, and my feedback was a response more to the clarity of ideas in their work than it’
In part, I blame my lack of knowledge about the PLA genre, which has since been supplemented by the recent Professional Development. However, the reality that I, as a writing tutor, cannot know how well the writer’s professional experience matches the course requirements also felt like a barrier to feedback.
The Height of Barriers
Offering feedback on such a high-risk project without knowing the profession or field of study leads to a lot of discussion between tutors and writers. The course-match essay is often the only submitted evidence that a writer’s professional experience ought to amount to course credit, and tutors have no way of knowing if the evidence meets PLA expectations or not.
Thus, these appointments may feel somewhat elephant-in-the-room-like; but as tutors, it’s not our fault necessarily.
The Length of Compromises
Of course, tutors are not subject-matter experts, or even infallible writing experts. As high-risk as PLA appointments may feel, we cannot be expected to comment on the professional and academic validity of the writer’s project.
However, asking questions that reveal the position of a writer’s professional experience within course outcomes will help you make sound predictions about the connections between course objectives and professional experiences.
Moreover, our main responsibility as tutors in these appointments is to provide feedback on writing style and clarity of ideas within the essay.
The Sum of These Measures
Working in the genre of PLA, we can assume the committee is looking for effective essays that communicate ideas, not necessarily essays that convey a high-level writing ability. Most students writing PLAs have not been in school for any number of years and may have forgotten or missed out on learning certain fundamental and stylistic conventions of writing all together: things like transition sentences and analysis of supporting evidence may not be part of their writing instincts.
As tutors, we understand this assignment is not meant to showcase writing ability—yet writing is still the medium of expression.
We are prepared to negotiate higher and lower-order concerns, but without an idea of what the PLA committee considers a concerning vs unimportant writing practice, how can we decide what to focus on in these high-risk appointments?
Some PLA appointments may reveal writing practices that obscure clarity of ideas, making writing ineffective and insinuating a higher-order concern for tutoring. Other times, highest-order concerns of the work may be unclear. Of course, the high-risk work should be as polished as possible, but it may feel unrealistic and unmanageable to open up discussions of advanced writing techniques, like paragraph structure and organization, with writers who are applying to school.
This is where the expectations for the quality of PLA writing would be useful for tutors.
The Derived Equation
A contradiction exists here in the fact that undergraduate students at DePaul are required (with a capital R) to take at least the last of a three-course Rhetoric and Composition sequence in the WRD department. With this policy in place, the ability to communicate in writing effectively feels like a prerequisite to all courses at DePaul.
Returning students writing PLAs for course credit cannot be expected to showcase that their professional experience ought to translate into course credit in their major and meet the learning outcomes of the First Year-Writing program, can they?
This begs the question, what are the PLA committee’s expectations for applicants writing in their essays?
Language used in the associated PLA Rubric feels unclear, stating: “Explanation of experience is comprehensive and detailed.”
Is it ok if a comprehensive explanation is hard to follow?
As tutors, should we be expected to introduce new, advanced writing concepts in these appointments, or risk providing a little too much help on these high-risk assignments by making suggestions without touching on the can-of-worms rationale that lies beneath?
While we can all agree these appointments can feel high-strung and stressful, PLAs are a valuable opportunity for students re-entering education from the workforce, and thus constitute an important type of appointment for Writing Center tutors.