Sean Brown-Hussey

ENG 405
Mr. Henry
15 March, 2016
Non-Directive & Directive Tutoring Approaches

What follows is a collection of research on the idea of non-directive and directive

tutoring approaches. The research and the findings should conclude that the best course of action
for tutors should not be to simply decide between one or the other but to instead utilize either
approach at the appropriate moments, as detailed below.

Brooks, Jeff. "Minimalist Tutoring: Making Students Do All The Work." The St. Martin's
Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 128-32. Print.
In this essay, Jeff Brooks argues that the focus of a tutor should be to improve a writer rather than
the writing itself with an emphasis on non-directive minimalist tutoring. He created three
strategic approaches to non-directive minimalist tutoring; basic, advanced, and defensive.
The basic approach emphasizes the interaction of tutor and writer to be equal; sit beside
the writer, have the writer read aloud, etc. The advanced approach intends to help writers feel
positive about their work while keeping them engaged in the session; remain positive, keep the
writer talking, etc. The defensive approach, almost in complete contrast to the overall positivity
of the other two, is how Brooks attempts to address non-cooperative, non-responsive writers in
the session. Here, Brooks actively balks at the idea of a non-cooperative writer, and suggests that
a tutor should resist a non-cooperative writer by becoming non-cooperative as well.

Brown-Hussey 2
Overall, while this essay is a helpful resource to remind us how non-directive tutoring
should emphasize equality and positivity, it may actually serve as a warning of sorts: the best of
intentions may produce negative results. While the basic and advanced approaches to tutoring
are good tools for us to have as tutors, the defensive approach is not productive at all. Instead,
such non-cooperative writers should be drawn back into the session with directive tutoring
strategies. I personally utilize basic and advanced non-directive approaches quite regularly, but
would never resort to defensive.
Boyd, Kristin, and Ann Halbeck. "We Have a Secret: Balancing Directiveness and
Nondirectiveness During Peer Tutoring." WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship
35.3-4 (2010): 14-15. International Writing Centers Association. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.
In this essay, Boyd and Halbeck suggest that tutors should be fully aware of the power dynamics
of any given session and be prepared to employ directive or non-directive tutoring styles
depending on the situation.
Boyd and Halbeck describe a session wherein a tutor assisted a writer with a reflection
paper on a film, which required an analysis of film techniques. The tutor had greater knowledge
of film techniques than the writer and became more directive in the session to share this
knowledge, but suddenly backed off after she felt she was being too directive and informative.
Instead, the tutor took a non-directive approach and asked the writer questions meant to fish out
answers with little positive result. This frustrated the tutor and the writer, and after she realized
how ineffective this was, the tutor shifted back to a directive tutoring approach to inform the
writer of the film technique information she knew. She then shifted back to a non-directive
approach by asking the writer to apply this new knowledge back to the essay. The brief shift to

Brown-Hussey 3
directive tutoring was successful in drawing the writer back into the session while the shift back
into non-directive tutoring allowed the writer to utilize the new knowledge gained to explore new
directions in the paper.
This back-and-forward shifting of tutoring states reflects Carino's beliefs on authority,
where the dynamics of any given session must be maintained by the tutor based on who has more
authority on a given subject. With this in mind, we should feel welcome to ask writers what their
current knowledge and experiences are on a subject, but when it is clear that we are an authority
on a subject, we should also be prepared to share the information we know rather than needlessly
ration it. To this end, we should keep in mind Boyd and Halbeck's paddleboat analogy made at
the end of the essay: both writers must work in concert with each other or risk going in circles.
In my experience as a coach, remaining non-directive with writers who are hesitant tends to
result in little being done within a 30-minute session. If switching between non-directive and
directive approaches allows for a more efficient session, then I am all for it.
Carino, Peter. "Power and Authority in Peer Tutoring." The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing
Tutors. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 112-27. Print.
In this essay, Peter Carino directly responds to Jeff Brooks and argues that tutors and their
writers should be empowered to utilize their unique expertise in writing to exert benevolent
authority whenever necessary. Therefore, tutors should exercise flexibility rather than blindly
adhering to non-directive tutoring theory.
Carino defines the ideal scenario of non-directive tutoring to be similar to Kenneth
Bruffee's ideas of collaborative learning wherein both tutor and writer learn from one another on
equal terms; for example, a tutor would learn details of how a chemistry lab report is formatted

Brown-Hussey 4
while the writer would learn how a thesis statement is written. However, Carino argues that this
totally equal relationship is entirely mythological and that, in every tutoring session, only one or
the other has authority to speak on a given subject by who intimately knows more knowledge of
the subject than the other. Drinking the non-directive Kool-Aid without question is, according to
Carino, ultimately detrimental to the writers. Additionally, while the writer has the power to
reject suggestions from the tutor, by the nature of the tutor/writer relationship, tutors typically
have the power to influence a writers paper by default.
In summary, as tutors, we should recognize who has the authority of a subject and decide
how to lead the paper once authority has been established. A quick way to establish this would
be to ask the writer what they know on a given subject, and if it is far above your own, authority
is established with the writer. We should grant authority to the writer if they know more about
the subject and lead the session in a non-directive format; on the other hand, if we know more
about a given subject, we should have authority to be more directive with a writer. Personally, I
find that when I encounter a writer with way more knowledge than me on a particular subject, it
is much more efficient to ask questions about the subject, then follow up with questions on how
that information can be applied to the paper. This is primarily non-directive in nature as I merely
guide the writer back to the paper and has an added benefit of learning more about a subject that
could be applied to future writers with the same subject.
Kopek, Lauren. "Overcoming the Silence: An Exploration of the Middle Ground of Directivity."
WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship 32.10 (2008): 14-15. International
Writing Centers Association. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.
In this essay, Lauren Kopek regales us with a tale of a particular tutoring session. With this tale,

Brown-Hussey 5
she explains how observing the behavior and body language of her writer prompted her to
change from non-directive tutoring to directive tutoring, and asks that tutors carefully consider
the dynamics of any given session to decide on how to engage their own writers.
Kopek explains how, initially, the writer was engaged with the paper via non-directive
questioning, but simply had to be given time to formulate answers. Kopek observed how, when
prompted with non-directive questions, her writer skimmed passages in the paper with a finger.
This demonstrated that the writer was closely reading her own text; therefore, non-directive
tutoring was still effective. However, later on in the session, her writer asked for clarification on
a teacher's comment on her paper. After prompting the writer to read through the paper and find
the passage in question the teacher is responding to, the writer became unresponsive and
withdrawn. Kopek observed that the writer became silent and avoided eye contact with her
paper. Unsure if the writer did not know how to answer or was simply afraid to, Kopek used an
open ended directive question to pull the writer's attention to a particular passage. This
successfully drew the writer back into a productive session.
Here, we can see how Kopek learned how being attentive to the attitudes of her writer
allowed her insight to the needs of her writer. When writers are engaged with the session, nondirective tutoring allows them to explore their own writings at their own pace. When writers are
detached from the session, directive tutoring helps to draw writers back into the session. Keen
observation of our writers will allow us to decide whether directive or non-directive tutoring
approaches will be effective. Oftentimes, I have saved an otherwise unproductive session by
reading the body language of my writer and shifting accordingly. We just need to practice this
with each session we have, even with our regulars. Our writers will appreciate us more for the

Brown-Hussey 6
effort.
Nicklay, Jennifer. Got Guilt? Consultant Guilt in the Writing Center Community. The Writing
Center Journal 32.1 (2012): 1427. Web.
In this essay, Nicklay argues that writing centers can provide better support to their tutors by
encouraging flexibility and collaboration rather than making them feel boxed into non-directive
or directive approaches to tutoring.
Nicklay states that one of the most important aspects of working as a writing center tutor
is the ability to adjust to the needs of the individual writer. Some tutors, however, believe that
there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to handle certain scenarios, and believe that rigid
rules would be better. Of course, no rules on how to tutor truly exist. Stephen North's The Idea
of a Writing Center states that all that matters is that tutors try to improve writers rather than
papers and promotes flexibility in how to tutor, as he advocates for talk in all its forms as ways
to assist writers. In contrast, Jeff Brooks' Minimalist Tutoring: Making Students Do All The
Work, which strongly advocates for minimalist non-directive tutoring approaches, emphasizes
rules and steps. Nicklay states that, if minimalist tutoring is emphasized too much, collaboration
can be compromised. Writers struggling for answers encountering tutors sticking to nondirective tutoring approaches may find an unreachable impasse.
Therefore, for us as tutors, it is more important for us to consider the needs of the writer
rather than emphasize one tutoring style over another. A strict adherence to non-directive
tutoring approaches may leave writers frustrated. On the other hand, a strict adherence to
directive tutoring approaches could leave writers voices out of their own papers. The most
important aspect of our type of tutoring is cooperation; therefore, to attain cooperation, we

Brown-Hussey 7
should aspire for flexibility rather than rules. I find that maintaining a flexible approach been
useful throughout my tutoring career, not only with my writers but with myself as well. By
keeping myself on my toes rather than resting on my laurels, I remain engaged with my writers
and keep myself energized throughout my shift.