Throughout my time as a mentor, I've deeply engaged with the theoretical foundations that support writing mentorship, particularly exploring the tension between authority and collaboration. The readings serve as a blessing, providing accounts and ideas and even taking a moment to understand the difficulties of mentoring. 

​

Trimbur speaks of a "delicate balance" between a peer and a tutor, which I find an appropriate reminder in life itself. Growing up in between varying educational systems, I always found myself wary of authority, and that discomfort shaped the way I gave feedback—initially overly kind and just kindly pointing at flaws. Over time, I began to realize that "sweetness" wasn't always helpful. Honest, direct feedback, grounded in improvement, is ultimately a greater sign of respect and value for students. 

​

In the attached screenshots, I reflect on how online mentoring can have its drop-off service downfalls, which led to me shifting my style to feel more like a real-time exchange, following ways that felt continuous and conversational. 

Another vital lesson for me was Peter Elbow's writing on commenting. His "We aren't meant to fix anything" approach challenged my early impulses and taught me to embrace a reader-oriented act rather than a "here you missed this, this this, and this, here's your grade, don't forget that next time." vibe. 

​

In all, the theories were much more surprising than I expected; when you first get into this, you don't realize that you have to learn to be a teacher. It was helpful to converse with other mentors who were experiencing the same things; it built a sense of camaraderie and added to our purpose.