In-person and remote one-on-one sessions
After a writing skills training program, some clients schedule follow-up one-on-one coaching sessions for some or all of the program participants.
During these one-on-one sessions, Marilyn and each participant, working together, edit a sample of the participant’s writing and discuss writing strengths and issues.
When the one-on-one is in person, Marilyn and each participant work side by side on the participant’s writing sample. When the one-on-one is remote, Marilyn and each participant work together on line, using Google Docs or a similar platform along with telephone or web conferencing.
These one-on-one sessions reinforce the group session, allowing participants to apply the lessons learned during the group session to their own writing.
After an initial conversation, Marilyn receives a sample of the participant’s writing, edits it, and emails the Track Changes document back. The participant and Marilyn then arrange a time for a telephone or web conference coaching session to discuss the edited writing sample and steps to take to improve the writing.
This coaching process can continue with additional writing samples. Some time between cycles is helpful—it allows the participant time to apply what is learned to new writing projects.
Very helpful—pragmatic feedback on real-world writing sample.
Using my writing to demonstrate the concepts taught in class was very helpful. I found Marilyn’s approach to teaching very effective and pragmatic.
Ability to look over and receive feedback on my own writing was very valuable. Will be helpful for future products.
It was very helpful to take a piece of writing I had just completed, actually go through it line-by-line, and hear Marilyn’s thoughts and feedback. It identified some consistent patterns in my writing that could stand to be altered.
It was a lot like getting a stronger eye glass prescription: I could see before but now I have new clarity that lets me see the familiar in a new way. [Most valuable:] Discussion about alternative approaches, rather than dogmatic ‘this is right’ vs. ‘this is wrong’.