A reflection on Jaden Goldfain presentation of  “To Direct or Not To Direct: That is Not The Question.” presented on March 23, 2025 at the WCA SoCal Conference. 

At the WCA SoCal conference of 2025, I was blessed to have listened to Jaden Goldfain’s research on direct and nondirect questioning in a writing center. Her question was simple initially: which technique is better? In her research she discovered that tutors most often enter sessions in a default mode of indirect questioning, but switch to directive techniques  when the session necessitates explicit information. 

Directive and indirect are methods of communication through which to ask consultees questions about their paper. In directive technique, the consultant is trying to either lead the consultee to a specific result, or tell them the correct answer. Goldfain simplifies this by defining directive technique as “ideas or words for revision that originate from the tutor.” In contrast, nondirective methods are ways that consultants can ask open ended prompts that explore the perspective of the consultee. Goldfain defines nondirective techniques as “ideas or words for revision that originate from the tutee.” In this simple definition of directive and nondirective, Goldfain establishes the groundwork through which to explore her thesis. 

During her presentation, Goldfain admitted the limitations of her initial thesis. She was hoping to find which technique was more effective, and appropriate to utilize in writing centers. However, through both historical, and personal research she discovered that she had been asking the wrong question. Looking first at her historical research, Goldfain explained that from 1984-1991, writing centers emphasized and focused on the nondirective technique. They believed that by making the students do completely their own work, they were encouraging independent writers. In 1995 though, some new research and opinions were raised. Why would consultants, the very people who are being sought after for help, withhold specific help and feedback for their clients? Beginning in 2001, scholars seemed to reach a consensus that rather than only using one technique, it is more important to utilize both in balance with each other. Goldfain agreed with this contemporary conclusion, but was still left with an important question. She asked “If both methods are important in consultations, how do tutors decide which approach to take at which moment?” Which, if phrased differently is “How can consultants read students, as well as they read consultees papers?” This question incorporates so many dynamics. As consultants we want to help equip our students, but we do not want to do their work for them, nor do we want to leave them feeling confused, nor do we want them to feel defeated. In a writing session, consultants are balancing the dynamic of both the paper and person in front of us. This means we are engaging both our intellectual and emotional intelligence to support the writers we encounter. Goldfain’s question is extremely valuable to consider as a consultant, so I can be best prepared to help the students I meet with. 

In light of the historical context, Goldfain decided to conduct her own research using tutors in her writing center at Point Loma Nazarene University. She recorded four sessions, and following 24-42 hours after that appointment, she met with the consultant. During those meetings she would listen back through the session with the consultant and every time the consultant made either a direct or indirect move, Goldfain would pause the recording and ask the consultant why they made that choice. Through this data she determined that 62% of questions asked were directive, while 38% were nondirective. This puzzled Goldfain, as it did I, because we are taught as tutors to primarily focus on nondirective questioning techniques, so why would directive questions be so much more substantial? However, through analysis of the questions, we can further understand the results. The reasons why tutors asked directive questions was due 54% to students who needed information, 15% to session constraints (normally time), 8% to student behavior, 8% to a quick fix, and 15% of the time because the consultant was affirmed that the student would maintain autonomy. There were five reasons why consultants asked directive questions, whereas there were only two reasons that they asked nondirective questions. These were 12% because the student had information the consultant did not have, and 88% of the time because the tutor wanted the student to maintain autonomy. 

Goldfain’s results are fascinating. 88% of the time a tutor asked a nondirect question was because they wanted the student to maintain autonomy. This is the solitary purpose of asking indirect questions (other than critical information that is outside of the consultants hands). In the case of direct questioning, there are five factors that create that result, one of which still emphasizes student autonomy. Goldfain’s research suggests that experienced tutors will most often enter sessions in a default nondirective mode, but will switch to directive techniques when the session necessitates explicit information. Ultimately, consultants aim to lead nondirective questions that affirm student autonomy, but will use directive techniques if necessary. 

The issue with this thesis is how can one know when it is necessary to use directive techniques? There is not one formula for Writing Studio appointments as there is not only one writer in the world. Therefore it is impossible to know from a formulaic perspective of when to be directive. Goldfain concludes her research with a statement that seeks to amend this divide. 

“Writing Studio consultants should know why they are taking a directive or nondirective approach in their sessions, so they can ensure they are only taking a directive approach when the session has no other way forward.”

Her final remarks are helpful food for thought in my consultation technique. The more intentional, and aware I am of the “moves” I make in a session, the more effective I will be in helping my writers. I want to grow in self awareness in my sessions. As a consultant, I am a strong diagnoser of a paper’s largest issue, and can see the path to how it can be fixed. But sometimes, due to my over excitement, or a consultees lack of interest, I struggle to equip nondirective techniques. I either get too carried away in offering suggestions for the ideal version of their paper, or I reach roadblocks trying to help them find agency in their paper. By slowing down, and growing more self aware in these moments, I believe I will become a more helpful consultant. 

A professional in the room also offered some unique advice in response to Goldfain’s research. He suggested that as tutors we should be upfront and honest with our tutees in our pedagogical approach. As a tutee comes in, the tutor can and should be honest with them by using phrases like “I am so sorry I cannot give you that answer” or “I am not going to offer a sentence option because I want you to write this in your own words.” By being upfront in our pedagogy in sessions, consultees will hopefully feel less frustrated when we do not offer the answer, and instead see the reason why we may hold back ideas. It is not for the pride of the consultant, but rather for the edification of the consultee. 

Jaden Goldfain’s research and insight is invaluable to me as a first year consultant. From her studies I am reminded to be more intentional in when I ask direct or indirect questions. 

Bibliography
Goldfain, Jaden. Personal Communication. “To Direct or Not to Direct: That is not the Question.” WCA SoCal Conference. March 23, 2025.