Tutela a guiding influence

Hello all! I hope that all of you had a super break and have been able to "bounce back" from your midterm exams and projects. As you are all aware by now, I will be leaving my position as Tutor Coordinator for New Dimensions In Learning to take a faculty position at the University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire. I'll save my good-byes for the next issue of Tutela; but for now, I just want to let you know that I am doing all I can to insure a smooth transition for the new Tutor Coordinator so that s/he will not be overwhelmed by the craziness of the fall semester. (Those of you who have tutored in the fall know what I mean!) I'm hoping that you will be able to help me in two ways. First, I hope that you will stick around for the fall semester! Having experienced tutors available is a tremendous help to a new person in this position. Second, if you have friends or colleagues who you think would make good tutors, especially for math, science, business, or general education courses, please urge them to apply -- and apply early. I hope to hire a good number of fall tutors yet this spring. This will go a long way in easing the introduction of the new Tutor Coordinator into his/her new role!

Our new Learning Coordinator/Counselor, Terry Ishitani, is making his first contribution to Tutela in this issue. If you have ideas, issues, or questions about learning or study skills that you would like Terry to address in future issues, please feel free to pass them along to him.

We are now beginning our search for a new Tutela editor to replace Christina Johnson. This is a paid position requiring an average of 5-7 hours a week (note that this is an average -- the new editor can expect to work more hours in the two weeks prior to the copy deadline and less time during other weeks). This is a one-year appointment covering the publication of 7-8 issues of Tutela -- 3 issues each semester and 1-2 during the summer session. If you would like to learn more about the position, please contact me or feel free to contact Christina at christina-r-johnson@uiowa.edu. If you would like to apply for the position, please submit a one-page narrative (approximately 250 words) describing why you would like to be the new Tutela editor. Submissions will be accepted until May 1. Requests for tutors are still coming in. Please feel free to drop me an e-mail letting me know what your current status is regarding additional students. Also, please let me know if any of your students have dropped or have stopped attending sessions so that we can update our records and notify counselors when appropriate. As always, thanks for all your hard work and dedication.

Top of Page | Tutela Home | NDIL Home | OSSP Home

So, does anyone out there have spring fever? Yeah, OK, maybe that was a silly question. Does anyone out there NOT have spring fever? Well, I do! Yes, believe it or not, that annual affliction that affects most of the college population about this time of year has struck again. We hope that spring fever has not struck all of you Tutela-toting tutors too tremendously. But if it has, take heart! This installment of Tutela has been slated to focus on how to reframe, rejuvenate, and recoup that enthusiasm that can somehow slide south during spring semesters. Join me on a journey through a reframed consciousness. With this journey, we will discover how and why some reframing might be helpful in our own lives. We can learn how the post-spring-break, pre-finals weeks mark a turning point in our semesters. And finally, we'll share some tips for tutor survival and student stamina. --CJ

Top of Page | Tutela Home | NDIL Home | OSSP Home

Reframing (?!?) some of you may ask. What in the world is reframing and why might I need to do it? There are some simple answers to what reframing is and why it could benefit you and some not so simple answers to how to reframe a half-gone-semester. I will attempt to touch on all three: what, why, and how.

Reframing can be many things. From the simplest, most literal definition, (putting a new outside around an old inside) to the most abstract, figurative ideas about reframing, there are many different ways to approach the new perspective that a new frame provides. We will refer to our "reframing" project in relatively abstract terms for the purposes of this article. The frame is our way of looking at any given situation and the "frame of mind" through which we evaluate that situation. "Reframing" simply refers to a process of becoming aware of our old frame and, perhaps, choosing a new frame, a new approach, to evaluating situations. In speaking about what reframing is for tutors, I would like to touch three central areas: 1) the frame through which we evaluate our own performance as students and tutors, 2) the frame through which we evaluate the performance of our students, and, 3) the frame through which we assess the successful (I hope) progression of the semester.

Much of the extant social psychological literature approaches the topic of our own evaluations of our own performances. Indeed, people can be (and most are) their harshest critic. As NDIL tutors, we have all set very high standards of achievement for ourselves. This is very good. The way we interpret our behaviors if we fail to meet those standards, or sometimes even if we succeed at meeting those standards, can be harmful.

Bernard Weiner (1979, 1989) developed a theory to describe how people think about the causes of their own behavior. It is called attribution theory. This theory suggests that people attribute the causes of their behavior and the outcomes of this behavior along four different dimensions:

• STABILITY -- An individual assesses whether or not the outcome of a behavior is stable and unchangeable. If the outcome is deemed to be unstable, it is assumed that it will change with time, practice, experience, or many other factors. For example, in the past I have done well on essay exams. It may happen that I write a very poor essay and receive a bad grade. Chances are, I would consider my past performance and decide that the outcome (bad grade) was very unstable and changeable.

• LOCUS OF CAUSALITY -- Each individual works to determine if the outcome of a behavior is caused by forces within him/herself or forces outside of that individual. For example, I may suggest that my poor performance on a recent midterm exam is due to the extra noise filtering into the testing room, thereby attributing the outcome (poor performance) to external causes (noisy environment).

• PERSONAL CONTROLLABILITY -- The individual tries to decide if the outcome of the behavior is within his/her personal control. This dimension varies from high personal controllability to low personal controllability.

• EXTERNAL CONTROLLABILITY -- Although this dimension would seem to be the opposite of personal controllability, it actually functions separately from it. External controllability describes the degree to which forces outside of the individual dictate the behavioral outcome. This dimension also varies from high to low.

Each individual assesses the outcomes of his/her own performance along these lines. The way we choose to attribute outcomes can help to determine our own motivation to continue at a task, and sometimes even our own motivation to succeed at that task.

So, you may ask, what do attributions have to do with reframing? And more importantly, what do attributions have to do with me as a tutor and a student? Nearly everything. I suspect that many of you already have this figured out. If you find that you have personal shortcomings, that you don't find the amount of success at a task that you had originally hoped for, or that you simply canÕt live up to your own high standards from time to time, your attributional style may be part of your desire to persevere and strive for success. That is, if you find yourself attributing negative performance outcomes to stable, externally controlled factors, your drive for success in that situation may be severely limited. Let's try an example:

Jane has decided that she needs to receive an "A" on everything she does for school. Although she works to achieve this goal, she finds that she receives a "B" from time to time. Jane begins to believe that she will always receive "Bs" now and then, and there is nothing she can do to combat the occasional "B," since the professors are the ones giving out grades. Soon thereafter, her motivation to strive toward "As" starts to fade, and she accepts "Bs" as adequate.

In this short example, Jane has attributed her "B" grades to stable (always will receive "Bs"), externally controlled (professors give grades) factors. With those two thoughts working against her, Jane begins to loose her achievement motivation. If the end of the story changed slightly, her motivation may have remained at higher levels, as in the following example:

When Jane (the "A" student) receives a "B" she thinks it must be a fluke. She has had a stressful week and written a sub-standard paper. She makes a mental note not to procrastinate so her weeks won't be so stressful anymore and to keep striving for her highest standard of success.

In this example, Jane has made an unstable (fluke), personally controllable (not procrastinating) attribution. With this style of attribution, she maintains her achievement motivation and goes on to succeed again.

Sometimes, when trying to decide what caused a certain outcome of one of our behaviors, it could be valuable to take our attitudes to the attributional auditor for an adjustment. Attributions, however, don't end with our own reflections on personal behavior. They extend into the realm of how we examine the behaviors of others, including our students.

Harold Kelley (1967, 1973) developed a theory of attribution centering on how we judge other's behavior. We have two choices in attributing the causes of a particular behavior observed in someone else. We can choose to believe that the behavior was caused by forces within the individual, or we can choose to believe that external forces caused that person to act the way they did. In reality, both of these, internal and external forces, generally contribute to behavior. Attributions are simply a quick way for us to decide information about the person in question. Kelley's theory describes three informational sources on which we base our attribution about someone else's behavior. These informational sources are:

• CONSISTENCY -- In examining consistency, we may consider whether the person in question commits the behavior in question with a high frequency in similar situations. For example, if my student, John, were to experience a sleepless night before EVERY exam, I would conclude that he is a very consistent pre-exam insomniac.

• DISTINCTIVENESS -- This refers to the degree to which the person (John) commits the behavior (sleepless nights) in other situations (not before exams). Distinctiveness can be high or low. If I were to discover that John has a sleep disorder and frequently has sleepless nights, regardless of his exam schedule, I would conclude that an episode of pre-exam insomnia has low distinctiveness.

• CONSENSUS -- Consensus speaks to the degree to which others commit the same behavior in similar situations. If I were to find out that the majority of students do not experience sleepless nights before exams, I would conclude that John's pre-exam insomnia has low consensus.

In this situation, where consistency is high, distinctiveness is low, and consensus is low, I have no other clear option than to conclude that John's sleepless nights are caused by forces internal to John, perhaps a sleep disorder. However, if some of the variables were changed, my attribution about the source of John's behavior may change. In the case where John experiences only one pre-exam sleepless night (low consistency), sleeps well on other occasions (low distinctiveness), and finds that his classmates haven't slept in the night preceding this particular exam either (high consensus), I would attribute John's sleepless night to a cause external to him.

Making attributions about the causes of other's behavior can be dangerous. Indeed, we have a tendency to attribute causes of other's behavior to internal causes far too often. That is, we frequently do not pay enough attention or give enough weight to the power of the situation surrounding the individual's behavior. In doing so, we often misattribute negative behaviors to causes internal to the individual. As tutors, we must strive to consider the whole picture, if you will, when we apply our attributional framework.

As we progress through the semester as students and tutors, we are constantly (sometimes even not knowingly) making attributions about our own behavior and that of others. Too much of one kind of attribution is damaging. It is alarmingly easy to over-attribute our own shortcomings to internal causes and thereby abuse ourselves over (imagined) personal failures or see these negative outcomes as caused by external factors and begin to feel victimized. It is also quite easy to allow ourselves to see our successes as being caused by only internal factors such as natural ability. We then discount the contribution of effort and good teaching. If we see our success as caused only by external factors, we fail to see the ability each one of us possesses. Likewise, we often make faulty attributions about our students' behaviors, believing that these behaviors come more from internal causes than external.

The answer to the question "Why may we need to reframe?" quickly becomes clear. If we have reason to believe that we may make a faulty attribution or two (and after reading this article, I hope you do believe just that), a good reframing of our outlook on our students and ourselves is warranted. If attributional styles can be slightly modified to take a more open stance about the causes of behavior, we will set ourselves up for a healthier, more adaptive existence as students and tutors.

Sources:

Kelley, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In. D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp.192-238). Lincoln: University of Lincoln Press.

Kelley, H.H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7, 3-25.

Weiner, B. (1989). Human motivation. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.

Top of Page | Tutela Home | NDIL Home | OSSP Home

In 1759, Samuel Johnson wrote, "The poet must write as the interpreter of nature, and the legislator of mankind, and consider himself as presiding over the thoughts and manners of future generations; as a being superior in time and place." Indeed, the poets that interest us have the ability to make a different interpretation of the world. Since this issue of Tutela is dedicated to the idea of reframing our perspectives on life, school, and each other, it seems only appropriate to share some lines written by a favorite of mine.

I would be remiss to suggest that I am an adequate critic of the finer literary arts or a connoisseur of high poetry (even "low" poetry for that matter). Indeed, I am not qualified to write a critical, cogent literary analysis of the works of the Bard. I do, however, know what I like and know the poets to whom I turn in times of stress, trepidation, and when my life in general needs a new frame. One of those comes like a breath of fresh air from my youth. Shel Silverstein has always been there with snappy rhymes and squiggly pictures to put a new perspective on just about anything.

In his book Falling Up, Silverstein wrote about "The Nap Taker." In the first verse, he gives voice to the speaker, an apparently young child who has "taken" someone's nap. This young narrator begins saying, "No -- I did not take a nap -- The nap -- took -- me. Off the bed and out the window -- far beyond the sea." The narrator goes on to describe how the inhabitants of the strange land interpreted his actions:

They took me to the courthouse, The judge put on his cap. He said, "My child, you are on trial For taking someone's nap."

The "victim" is described:

"...She's tired and drowsy -- cranky too, 'Cause guess who took her nap?"

And the verdict returned:

The jury cried, "You're guilty, yes, You're as guilty as can be, But just return that nap you took And we might set you free."

And met with a plea of innocence:

"I did not take that nap," I cried, "I give my solemn vow, And if I took it by mistake, I do not have it now."

Previous "criminal" history of the accused is examined:

"Oh fiddle-fudge," cried out the judge. "You're record looks quite sour. Last night I see you stole a kiss, Last week you took a shower. You beat your eggs, you've whipped your cream, At work you punched the clock, You've even killed an hour or two, We've heard you darn your socks, We know you shot a basketball, You've stolen second base, And we can see you're guilty From the sleep that's on your face."

Silverstein offers us a rich reconsideration, a reframing, of many things in life we consider to be mundane. Violence and harshness are inherent in each one. He reminds us of the unforgiving nature of human life as so deftly conveyed through our language. The final verse describes the sentencing of the young "nap-taker:"

"Go lie down on your blanket now And cry your guilty tears. I sentence you to one long nap For ninety million years. And when the other children see This nap that never ends, No child will ever dare to take Somebody's nap again."

Source: Silverstein, S. (1996). "The Nap Taker" Falling Up. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Top of Page | Tutela Home | NDIL Home | OSSP Home

Let me introduce myself. I am 6'2", black hair and brown eyes. I am a familiar face here on campus and the club where I work out daily. Some of you may remember me from the commercials I used to do for a fitness company. You could say I'm into physical fitness along with academic fitness. Also, I have an independent streak. My parents want me to live on the multi-million trust funds they have established for me but I said, "no." I am saving that income for my married life when my wife and I can share it. If I have captured your attention this far, then I have to 'fess up. This is the April's Fool issue and I have, shall I say, exaggerated my personal stats.

On the factual side, you will be able to find me in this column every issue. I will be addressing issues and questions tutors face in their quest to assist our diverse student body. For my first appearance in Tutela, I would like to talk about note taking. When I was a first-year student in a large lecture class, I copied every word the professor said. Then I realized that I was so busy writing that I didn't understand a thing! Later on, a friend of mine suggested that I listen for key phrases, such as "a prime example" or "in my opinion" or "in conclusion" or "in other words." This advice helped me with following lectures. I personally developed the habit of using different color pens and drawing lines across the page. For instance, I used a black pen for text and used a green pen for important terms. We all have similar methods for note taking. Simple things like using different color pens may be new to first-year students. As a tutor, you may want to share your unique note-taking techniques with your students.

If you have any questions you would like addressed in Tutela, send it to t-ishitani@uiowa.edu. I am looking forward to assisting you in your quest to give educational assistance to the students of the University of Iowa. Go Hawkeyes! (Go FSU!)

Academically yours, Terry

Top of Page | Tutela Home | NDIL Home | OSSP Home

Tutor Appreciation Day

Friday, April 28

2:00 - 4:00 p.m.

310 Calvin Hall

See YOU there!!

Stop by, drop off your tutoring reports and grab some munchies for a job well done!

Top of Page | Tutela Home | NDIL Home | OSSP Home

Page last modified April, 2000. Site maintained by University of Iowa Office of Support Service Programs.  Copyright © 2000 The University of Iowa. Creation of OSSP site directed by Ray Mescallado.