Valerio 1

Ali Valerio

Dr. Hall

ENC 4275

26 November 2014

Too Much Tutor Talk: Gender Roles and Authority in the Writing Center

As tutors in the Writing Center, we never know how our sessions will turn out. They

range from delightful to miserable, from pleasant to downright painful. This session was by far

the worst I’ve had this semester, and I’m not proud of it. My patterns of talk are so poor at some

points, I’m embarrassed to even acknowledge their existence. Yet, there are some valuable

lessons I can take away from this experience. For this consultation, student Lewis came in with a

rough draft for his education class, and he wanted to check the APA formatting of his paper.

Throughout our session there was a power struggle that came from gender roles and Lewis’s

perception of the Writing Center. This led to me feeling extremely intimidated throughout the

consultation, and that was evident in my patterns of talk. In my essay I will communicate how

gender roles affected my speech patterns in the consultation, and how they contributed to a

struggle for power that hindered the work being done.

Laurel Johnson Black is an English professor who knows quite a lot about the power of

talk. In her book Between Talk and Teaching: Reconsidering the Writing Conference, she

analyzes patterns of speech that occur between student-teacher conferences. This complex

conversation analysis gives her insight into how these patterns affect the delicate dynamics of

each conference. My objective is to replicate Black’s method with my own conversation analysis

by examining my patterns of speech and supporting my findings with her research. I will also
 Valerio 2

include research from Close Vertical Transcription in Writing Center Training and Research, a

piece by professors Magdalena Gilewics and Terese Thonus. With evidence from their works, I

will determine how my speech patterns affect the dynamics of my particular Writing Center

consultation. From there, I will make inferences about my own tutoring practices and imagine

alternatives for how those practices can be improved.

From the very beginning of the consultation, I was influenced by gender roles. Black

talks extensively in her book about gender roles in student-teacher conferences. She specifically

comments on patterns of speech between female teachers and male students, as well as vice

versa. This was not a conference between a female teacher and a male student, but a consultation

between a male student and a female peer tutor. Yet, we adhered to a combination of gendered

speech patterns that typically appear between both female teacher – male student conferences

and male teacher – female student conferences.

One example of this lies in the exchange of authority that occurs continually throughout

the consultation. Black notes in her book that “control and performance shift from moment to

moment in an intricate dance between participants” (68). At the beginning of the consultation, I

gave Lewis the authority to talk, and we assumed conventions typical to female student – male

teacher conferences that Black analyzes. The primary way I did this was through

backchannelling. Black discusses backchannelling as “agreement or support either latched onto

[one’s] utterance or positioned during normal pauses” (49). Gilewics and Thonus provide a more

concrete definition, describing it as “contributions made by other participants while the first

speaker maintains the floor” (29). They go on to say that “speakers generally deploy

backchannels at sentence and clause boundaries as a supportive move to show agreement,

attention, or empathy while accompanying the on-the-floor speaker” (32).

 Valerio 3

Another pattern I used to show encouragement was cooperative overlaps. Black talks

about cooperative overlaps in relation to female student – male teacher conferences, so it

supports the notion that I’m somewhat giving up authority in this part of the consultation. She

describes a study in which “female students overlapped cooperatively with male instructors

almost four times more frequently than with female instructors. In doing so, they indicate not

only the strict attention they are paying to the male partners but their willingness to assist the

male teacher in continuing to speak… their cooperative overlaps register consciously with male

teachers as support and encouragement” (64).

Although I was meaning to relay support and encouragement at the time, I wasn’t

necessarily trying to actively participate in backchannelling or cooperative overlaps. Also, I’m

not entirely sure if the cooperative overlaps registered as encouragement, like Black suggests.

This is an excerpt of my transcript that takes place very early in the consultation. My speech is

indicated by the T (for tutor), and is in bold for clarity. The student’s speech is indicated by an S.

The backchannelling is indicated by a yellow highlighter, and cooperative overlaps are preceded

by a right-facing bracket [ and highlighted in green.

1 Tutor: Okay, so, what are you working on today?

2 Student: Um, focus more on the APA formatting and the citations (.) making sure that everything is
3 T: okay
4 S: formatted properly.
5 T: (3s) And what is your paper about?
6 S: It is a literature review on online curriculum and distance education.
7 T: (2s) Okay. (4s) What class is this for?
8 S: Umm, EDH 6065.
9 T: Great, and I’m just, just get- making notes, you know, just helps me out. Um, cool, so, and when is
your assignment due?
 Valerio 4

10 S: Tomorrow.
11 T: Due tomorrow. Um, and you, is this, uhhh, okay, great, is this like a rough draft or a final draft—
12 S: It’s a final draft except for, she’s very strict about the APA formatting and citations
13 T: [final draft mm-hmm
14 S: and, being that I haven’t written a lot of papers in a long period of time, and I always did
15 T: mm-hmm
16 S: MLA and not APA kinda worried about the format side, I’m not that worried about
17 T: right, right mm-hmm
18 S: content if you see something that jumps out (2s) we can address it but I’m comfortable handing in
19 T: okay
20 S: the content (.) the way it is I’m just worried that (.) something (.) like I haven’t done an abstract
21 T: [the way it is
22 S: before, and then going through here I wanna make sure things like this is proper (points at
23 T: mm-hmm mm-hmm
24 S: paper), um, she stressed the whole paraphrasing as opposed to direct cites I’m used to doing
25 T: mm-hmm
26 S: direct quotes, and, not worrying about (.) where in the paper this goes when you’re paraphrasing,
‘cause, you put the quotes and you put it at the end is what I’m used to, so, that aspect
27 T: mm-hmm mm-hmm
28 S: of the paper is different (.) and I just wanna make sure I’ve done it all correctly before I hand it
in
29 T: okay
30 S: and (.) get a zero because I plagiarized on accident because it’s not my intention it’s
31 T: mm-hmm, yeah
32 S: all original work--
33 T: Right, right, I underst- yeah, I actually just wor- I had an appointment before this one where--
34 S: Yeah I, I we’re in the same class So it’s the same assignment
35 T: yeah, she um [you’re in the same class, yeah
36 S: three pages and we’re just trying to make sure that the formatting and all of
37 T: mm-hmm mm-hmm yeah
38 S: that (.) is correct.
 Valerio 5

I use backchannelling in this segment 17 times, and cooperative overlaps 3 times. I

wanted to give authority to Lewis and show him that I was willing to listen. However, in using so

much of this, I hinder him from talking and saying what he wants to say. From line 1 to line 10,

it’s an even exchange of information as I ask Lewis questions and he gives me answers. Then

from line 12 to line 32, Lewis has the floor, though I litter it with backchannelling. I’m not trying

to take the floor at this point. However, I interrupt Lewis at line 32, indicated by a dash (--), and

take the floor for a moment. Then Lewis interrupts me back, and he holds the floor from line 34

to 38. During this exchange I try to get my turn back at line 35 with yeah, she um and then a

cooperative overlap. I don’t succeed in taking the floor back, and I continue with

backchannelling until the end of the segment.

Although I take the floor once at the end of the segment, it’s not until the next excerpt

that I try to resume my role of authority as the peer tutor in this consultation. Here, gender roles

are just as prevalent, but they are reversed—the conventions that appear are similar to those of a

female teacher – male student conference as researched by Black. This makes sense, since I’m

the one who now exerts my authority over the situation, although I don’t have the same role as a

teacher in a conference. While I speak, Lewis also uses backchannelling. Unlike my primary

intention of providing encouragement, however, Lewis uses backchannelling to insert himself

back into the conversation. This is supported by Gilewics and Thonus, who state that

“occasionally, … speakers use backchannels as a strategy to seize the floor or to signal

displeasure” (33). This is not unusual for males, as Black says that “male students were much

more likely to interrupt their female teachers than their male teachers” (70).
 Valerio 6

Apart from using backchannelling to interrupt me, other times Lewis used discourse

markers. Black regards discourse markers as “ways of positioning a speaker either in relation to

the information or another speaker, of responding to an earlier utterance, even of gaining the

floor when speaking turns are contested” (42). She further remarks that male students use

“discourse markers to control conference talk with female teachers” (70). They also “use and

more forcefully to hold the floor, mark an upcoming utterance as possible disagreement with

well, and are more insistent on their own perspective” (70).

This is apparent in the next excerpt. While Lewis tries to interrupt me, I try to keep hold

of the floor through minimal responses and placeholders. Gilewics and Thonus define minimal

responses as “brief responses made by participants when they have the floor” (29). Black defines

placeholders as “keeping other parties from self-selecting, from joining in the talk” (65).

Gilewics and Thonus’ description of placeholders is also helpful, although they use the term

“filled pauses.” These are “hesitations during which a speaker utters sounds or words (such as

um, hmm, and like) as a means of maintaining the floor (to prevent interruptions and overlaps) or

formulating a response” (31). In the excerpt, minimal responses are highlighted in purple and

placeholders / filled pauses are highlighted in gray. Our use of discourse markers is highlighted

in light blue and our backchannelling is still highlighted in yellow.

55 T: Okay, (.) well we have some um, we have some (.) you know (.) handouts here and do (.) we
56 S: okay
57 T: have this is (.) we have some for references so just a reference page, and we can look at that too
if you want, and then we also have some for parenthetical documentation and you’re also
58 S: mm-hmm yep
59 T: welcome to take these home. So um, would you like to look first, what we did with um (.)
 Valerio 7

60 S: Yep. Okay
61 T: with (.) Deborah was we um looked at the reference page first and then went into in-text
62 T: citations if if you wanna do that we just get it out of the way you know (.) make
63 S: that works for me okay
64 T: sure –oh wait you have, you have two drafts of your paper, is this perfect, great--
65 S: one for you, one for me
66 S: And then I have the electronic here and I have all my sources here too if you wanna see the actual
source (.)
67 T: (.) Okay, okay. Um, that’s, that’s (.) great--
68 S: So I (.) whatever you need I have ready to go--
69 T: Okay, and um, perfect perfect. So, let’s just go ahead and look at your reference then quickly and
I’m also, I also, I don’t use (.) APA, I really don’t use APA either I use MLA (.) um (.) so (.) we’re at your
references page and (.) um (.) we can see (.) I mean we’ve got, we’ve got um I know this um—
70 S: Well I have two, I have two handbooks at home for APA and I copied them the best that I could
71 T: okay
72 S: so looking at this is no different than what I’ve already done at home so
73 T: okay okay so
74 S: I don’t know how much, like, if you wanna look at this too we can but (.) I’ve already done my
75 T: mm-hmm
76 S: due diligence on (.) I have the (.) 6th edition APA handbook that (.) all grad students are supposed
to have and I also went online to the Purdue Writing Center (.) APA (.) standard website
77 T: yeah okay
78 S: that all the professors tell you to use (2s) and I copied it the best I could, but (.) if somebody (.)
79 T: okay
80 S: and if you’re not the person I can make another appointment with the right person (.) to (.) make
sure that (.) this is correct.
81 T: Mm-hmm. I mean, it seems to me that if you did take it from the handbook and you looked at
the Purdue Owl I really don’t think there, there would be any problems it seems to me that
82 S: mm-hmm
83 S: And two, two of the (.) no, I’m sorry (.) four of the sites are straight from (.) like if I click here (2s to
show me source on laptop) to cite this article (.) in APA format (.) it’s right there. So I’m assuming it’s
right I figured writing center people are the experts so (.) the professor kind of (.) didn’t
84 T: mm-hmm (laugh)
 Valerio 8

85 S: require it but it was strongly suggested we have an appointment with review for formatting and
86 T: mm-hmm
87 S: all of that, so I’m doing my due diligence to get that done.
88 T: mm-hmm

In this segment of the transcript, I try to resume my role as authority. That happens at

some parts, but in the entire segment I speak 232 words and Lewis speaks 254. I have the floor

from line 55 to line 54, then on lines 67, 69, and 81. Each time I take back over the floor, I begin

with a minimal response. I also include discourse markers and placeholders throughout my

speech because I’m trying to keep hold of the floor. Lewis backchannels throughout my talk,

trying to insert himself into the discussion, and he successfully interrupts me at lines 65, 68, 70,

and 73. Each of these lines begin with a discourse marker, as Lewis tries to assert his position on

the situation. Clearly there is a power struggle here.

Black discusses this power struggle in her book, particularly with female teacher – male

student conferences. She refers to this as a “balancing act between the control that teachers

conventionally exert over students and the deference and support that women are supposed to

show men. Thus there is often a sense of struggle in the conferences between female teachers

and male students that isn’t present in conferences between these same female teachers and their

female students” (71); “the control [female teachers] maintain over male students… is often

subtly challenged” (71) and that their “responses to these challenges to their power are often

mixed and very complex” (70). She goes on to say that “in many contexts, cultural constructs for

males involve asserting dominance. In conferences with female instructors, the gender of the

instructor undermines at least slightly the power of her position as a teacher, thus permitting

male students to perform in some dominant ways” (74).

 Valerio 9

So, according to Black, through my use of conventions in my talk, I allow Lewis to

continue asserting his dominance and adhere to typical gender roles. It begins when I outwardly

state my lack of knowledge about APA style on line 69, saying I “don’t really use APA.”

Perhaps this is where I made my first big mistake, because right after comes three separate

attacks on my authority. The first is during Lewis’s turn from line 70 – 78. After I tell him we

can look at APA resources together to check his citations, he states that he already used

resources at home, indicating this would be a waste of time. Then on line 79, he says that he can

make an appointment with another tutor if I’m not the right person. He’s fighting for authority

while at the same time undermining my authority, due to my lack of knowledge about APA style.

Finally on line 83, he goes even further to recognize my lack of knowledge by asserting his

belief that “Writing Center people are experts,” indicating that I am supposed to be an expert at

APA style. Therefore, even though I try to remain an authority in this segment, Lewis asserts

dominance by calling me out on my perceived lack of authority.

If my patterns of talk were considered poor before this attack on my authority, they

certainly don’t improve after that. At this point in the consultation I am very intimidated, and I

struggle to remain in a position of authority. I weakly defend myself, and my fellow tutors, in

response to his perceptions about the Writing Center. The excerpt that follows takes place

immediately after the previous one. Minimal responses are again indicated in purple,

placeholders are in gray, discourse markers are in light blue, and relational markers are in teal.

88 T: Okay, um, yeah. Well, one thing is, we (.) we don’t (.) we’re not (.) we don’t want to be
considered as experts, um, I mean we (.) we uh (.) we definitely were trained and things but we’re
also (.) we (.) we wanna (.) help you work to figure it out together, you know? Um (.) it seems to
me that
 Valerio 10

89 S: mm-hmm
90 T: if you (.) looked at all these sources, and you have it right there, um, and I’m, I’m not an expert,
I’m not, um, we’re not experts. But we do, we do know how to (.) still find the answer, you know
91 S: mm-hmm
92 T: what I mean? So, um, if you, um, looked at those sources and you have how to cite it, um, I, I
93 S: yes
94 T: think that it’s (.) fine you know? And, we can still look and see if it matches but it seems like
95 S: okay
96 T: you did all of that

There is a lot that happens in this messy, miserable excerpt. I actively prepare myself to

give a response, and that is apparent in the transcript, although clearly it shouldn’t be. I begin

with the minimal response okay, indicating that I’m acknowledging his statement. I use um, the

first of 9 placeholders to help me maintain the floor for my defense. Then I use the discourse

marker well to position my argument—while subtly displaying my disagreement—for how we as

tutors work in the Writing Center. Then I state my response, using the word we 12 times

(referring to we specifically as Writing Center tutors) because I’m constantly trying to reposition

myself. Saying that, the word we in this instance could be thought of as a discourse marker.

Instead of plainly telling Lewis he is wrong about the Writing Center, I attempt to use my

language to pleasantly get him back on the same page, meanwhile continuing my gender-typical

efforts to offer encouragement. I do this with what Black calls relational markers, which she says

are “meant to invite or evoke the concept of shared knowledge and of the student’s entry into the

community” (53). I use relational markers 4 times in this excerpt, trying to bridge the gap

between the student’s understanding and the reality of the Writing Center.
 Valerio 11

In my essay so far, I have worked to understand the reasoning behind the conventions

that take place in this consultation. I have found that my patterns of speech—particularly

backchannelling, cooperative overlaps, placeholders, and relational makers—take place because

I adhere to gender roles typically observed in female student – male teacher conferences as well

as female teacher – male teacher conferences. In short, my patterns of talk are typical to those of

females in general. I predominantly want to be encouraging and supporting in my speech.

Lewis’s patterns of talk are also typical to those of males in general. He wants to assert

dominance in his speech. So what happens as a result of these conventions? I try to react to his

dominance by embracing my role as a tutor, but he extends his dominance by undermining my

authority. The result is a power struggle that is typical of conferences involving both genders.

We spend so much time arguing about who has the authority in the session that it becomes the

focus, instead of the work that gets done in the session. I also get intimidated from the power

struggle, and that further hinders my speech and adds to the cycle.

The truth is, I lost this power struggle as soon as I admitted to Lewis my lack of

knowledge about APA style. Although we wrestled to maintain the floor early on in the

consultation, it wasn’t until I openly led with my ignorance that he verbally tried to take

authority from me. And I pretty much gave him good reason to do it. It was my own honesty that

fueled my anxiety and ultimately led to the downfall of my authority. Had I not been so

straightforward, I may have avoided the occurrences that left me feeling so intimidated. When

Lewis told me he wanted help with his APA formatting, I could have worked to discover Lewis’s

understanding instead of presenting my own (or lack thereof). I could have said something such

as, “What are your concerns with APA style? What questions do you have? We can work to find

the answers together using the excellent resources we have available.” I believe saying this
 Valerio 12

would have left both of us feeling more satisfied and comfortable. By placing myself not entirely

in an expert position, yet not completely undermining my own authority, I would have been

more mentally prepared to help Lewis in the way he desired to be helped.

Although it’s clear I adhered to gender roles in this session, it’s less apparent why this

occurred. At first I thought it was because of Lewis’s preconceived notions about the Writing

Center. Now I realize that there’s an even deeper issue here. I believe my patterns of speech

ultimately resulted from conflicting values. Lewis and I had different objectives in mind, but not

just different objectives for the session. Instead, we had different objectives about learning.

Where I valued teaching and learning, Lewis was only concerned with evaluating and correcting.

When he was so strong in his beliefs, I was severely intimidated because they were quite

removed from my own. Other students have come to the Writing Center with incorrect

assumptions about our role as tutors. However, those students usually figure out fairly quickly

that their notions are somewhat flawed. When Lewis refused to budge on his ideals, the

difference in values made for some tense conversation and conventions.

From this experience, I learned that adhering to gender roles results in a power struggle

that diminishes the learning that can take place in a consultation. I had excessive

backchannelling and cooperative overlaps in areas where I should have remained silent and let

Lewis do the talking. I had unnecessary placeholders, discourse markers, and relational markers

where I should have just gotten to the point of what I was trying to say. I talked much, much

more than I needed to in this consultation, even though I was only trying to help. I didn’t mean to

talk so much, but I subconsciously let gender roles govern my speech. I also felt intimidated by

the writer’s expectations and values, and that further added to my surplus of talk. In the future, I

should be more aware of gender roles and how they can impact a consultation. When the
 Valerio 13

situation calls for it, I should be actively trying to work against gender roles, especially when a

writer has an incorrect perception about the Writing Center and those gender roles impact my

response. Perhaps most importantly, I should be prepared to work with students who have not

only different goals for a session in mind, but different ideas about what learning is and how it

should take place. If I am more aware of these ideas in sessions to come, then I can avoid the

mistakes I made here and feel more comfortable and satisfied with my role in the Writing Center.
 Valerio 14

Works Cited

Black, Laurel Johnson. Between Talk and Teaching: Reconsidering the Writing Center

Conference. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1998. Print.

Gilewics, Magdalena, and Terese Thonus. “Close Vertical Transcription in Writing Center

Training and Research.” The Writing Center Journal (2003): 25-49. Web. 27 October

2014.