Writing Centers

Writing centers are unique academic institutions. They are places where writers go for one-on-one feedback and assistance with their writing, offering a more personal and less hierarchical form of instruction. In the writing center, tutors work with students to improve not just the writer's text, but the criticial thinking and writing processes that the writer uses in creating a text. The pedagogical approach that a particular center employs may be informed by a number of educational and/or composition theories. This article provides a brief overview of the most common theories and practices employed in modern writing centers.

Keywords: Collaborative Learning; Curriculum-based Tutoring; Directive Tutoring; Expressionism; Humanism; Non-directive Tutoring; Process Approach; Social Constructionism; Writing Across the Curriculum; Writing Center; Writing Theory

Overview

On many campuses, the Writing Center is a place that is frequently misunderstood. Sometimes it's lucky enough to be housed in roomy quarters with computers, comfortable chairs, and numerous staff. Sometimes it occupies more humble spaces, perhaps an office in a back hallway or a basement, staffed by one caring tutor at a time. Writing centers are diverse and may seem to serve different purposes depending on the center's clientele, location, and position within the institutional framework.

Most writing centers today share the common goal of assisting individuals to become better writers. To do this, writing centers provide one-on-one consultations with trained peer or professional tutors. These consultations focus on improving an individual's writing and thinking processes. For instance, in a typical consultation, a writer may bring in a draft text for an assignment in an English class. The writer and tutor often begin with a conversation about the purpose of the assignment and what the writer would like to focus on during the session. Then, focusing on the writer's goals, the tutor will ask questions that help the writer clarify ideas or improve the written text. The goal of the session is to use the collaborative process to help the writer understand how a reader would comprehend the writer's ideas and thereby allow the writer to improve the work. This does not mean the final product must be a perfect text.

While sessions may focus on mechancial issues such as punctuation and grammar, most writing centers today do not conduct "fix-it" sessions in which tutors proofread and correct papers so that writers can get a better grade. Instead, if there is a consistent mechanical error (e.g., comma usage), tutors provide mini-lessons on the area of concern and then allow students to find and correct their errors. Thus, it is entirely possible for a student to use a writing center several times without emerging with a "perfected" paper in the eyes of a professor. This can be a source of misunderstanding and frustation if students and faculty expect writing centers to be places that provide editorial services.

Further Insights

The crucial component that makes a writing center different from a classroom is the relationship between the tutor and the writer. Unlike an instructor in a classroom, tutors do not have control over the student's grade; therefore, at least one element of power in the teacher-student relationship does not exist. Many times, tutors are graduate or undergraduate students, classified as the writer's peers, and therefore (possibly) more likely to adapt to the writer's perspective. Tutors can also offer more time to the student by scheduling time to discuss a student's paper several times a week or semester.

Within the context of this more equitable relationship, tutors have a variety of choices about how to interact with the writer depending on the tutor's and writing center's philosophy regarding writing, composition, education, and knowledge construction. A pedagogical decision during a session is whether to take a non-directive or directive approach.

Non-directive & Directive Tutoring

Non-directive tutoring, which encourages tutors to act Socratically and ask writers questions during a session instead of providing answers, is representative of the minimalist tutoring philosophy introduced and popularized by Jeff Brooks. Brooks (2008) writes that the goal of a tutoring session should be to help the writer learn how to write, not to perfect the writer's paper. "When you 'improve' a student's paper, you haven't been a tutor at all; you've been an editor" (Brooks, 2008, p. 169). Thus, he emphasizes that tutors should sit patiently with students and be willing to discuss all aspects of the paper and strategies for effective writing. Tutors should offer support and encouragement and keep the writer focused on the paper. While the end result may be a perfected paper, it does not have to be. In Brooks' view, if students leave a writing center session having a better understanding and better control of their own writing processes, then the session has been a success.

The directive approach involves the tutor serving as a source of authority on the writing style and providing the writer with examples of how to phrase the wording of the text. Modeling is a frequent technique of the directive approach. In modeling, a tutor may demonstrate how to write a text or give examples of the kind of writing expected and then ask the student to do the same. Directive tutoring has been noted as a common and effective practice for professors mentoring graduate students during the writing of their theses and dissertations (Shamoon & Burns, 2008). However, it is not the predominant approach used in modern writing centers. .FT.-Corbett (2011) recommends that when moving tutors to classrooms a more authoritative (directive) approach could be encouraged, but when these tutors move back to the center, we could ask them to resist the temptation to overuse what they know about the course and the instructor's expectations and "hold on a little tighter" to some nondirective methods and moves that could "place agency back in the hands and minds of the students" (2011).

Whether tutors and writing centers choose directive or non-directive approaches depends on the students' needs, the policies of the center, and the philosophies of the individual tutor. Writing centers are affected (as are all educational institutions) by the predominant theoretical conventions and constructs of certain time periods. In particular, theories originating within the fields of composition and education have most impacted the day-to-day operations of the writing center. Major philosophies impacting center work have included:

• Current traditional rhetoric,
• Expressionism and
• Social constructionism

Traditional Rhetoric

In the 1940s and 1950s, traditional rhetoric emphasized the form and structure of the text apart from the writer. In response, writing centers, or writing laboratories as they were called, emphasized instruction in grammar and the mechanics of writing. After receiving instruction on a particular aspect of form, students would practice individually, consulting with a tutor to check for correctness (Moore, 1995; Murphy & Law, 1995). The grammar drills and paper correction led to a perception that writing centers were "fix-it shops" (North, 2008, p. 35) for those who lacked fundamental writing skills. Many continue to hold this perception today.

Expressionism & Process Writing

In the 1970s to 1980s, Expressionist philosophy led tutors to deemphasize the text and instead focus on the writer and the writer's creative processes (Murphy & Law, 1995). Expressionism, which is a philosophy that falls within the category of Humanism, views knowledge as having a stable and permanent existence. According to this view, knowledge can either be learned from others or can be discovered within the self. Expressivists view writing as an important means to self-discovery. Through an intense and personal process, writers are able to discover their inner wisdom and gain a better understanding of themselves and of the world. From Expressionist theorizing was born the Process Approach, a pedagogy that points out that writing occurs within a series of stages. These stages are generally recognized as:

• Pre-writing (e.g., brainstorming, freewriting),
• Drafting,
• Revising,
• Editing and
• Publishing.

Although writers might use different techniques with each of the stages and their progression through each stage may not be uniform, all writers are believed to engage in some form of each stage (Trupe, 2001). In a class based on the Process Approach, teachers help writers develop strategies for each stage of the process. In a process-based tutoring session, a tutor observes where the writer is within his or her individual process and then works to move the writer to the next stage. North (2008), an oft-cited spokesperson for Expressionist-based tutoring, writes that in the writing center the result has been a "pedagogy of direct intervention" (p. 39). Unlike in earlier centers where tutors worked with writers after they had finished their written product, tutors in modern centers assist during the activity of writing. Thus, they observe and ask questions in order to enter and participate in the writer's train of thought. The function of the tutor within this space is to change the writer's process so the writer can produce higher quality text. They make sure, as North writes, that the writing center produces "better writers, not better writing" (North, 2008, p. 76).

Social Constructionism

Social Constructionism appeared in the 1980s and became increasingly important in the 1990s and early 21st century (Murphy & Sherwood, 2008). This philosophy views knowledge as a continually changing and evolving product of social interaction within particular social and cultural contexts. The primary mechanism of this change is language. In other words, as individuals discuss and theorize about the world, they develop a common language that shapes the way they perceive the world. Through interacting with those with differing views, new language is introduced or shifts to provide new understandings. The process is neverending, allowing for perpetual growth of the individual and society.

Social Constructionism has led to a greater emphasis on collaborative learning within the writing center. Collaborative learning is a style of learning that involves several students on a group project involving higher order problem-solving skills. Within the writing center, Lunsford (2008) argues, collaborative learning can be difficult to implement but offers students multiple benefits including the development of higher order thinking skills, deeper understanding of a subject, and higher achievement in classrooms. The challenge for writing centers, she says, is to find ways to constitute collaborative groups in the center and to monitor and evaluate group process to achieve the most benefit. One way that collaborative learning occurs in most centers is between the collaboration of tutor and student as they discuss and work on a student's text together. Other activities that involve collaborative learning include peer tutoring in writing workshops and reading/writing discussion circles (Kail & Trimbur, 1995).

While composition and educational philosophies have influenced what goes on within writing centers, they have also led to expansion of writing center services throughout higher education and into postsecondary schools. Calls for university graduates to be stronger writers along with a realization that writing is an integral part of clear disciplinary thinking led to the writing across the curriculum movement in the 1980s (Bazerman et al., 2005). This movement aims to make students in all disciplines better writers, and centers have responded by recruiting tutors from other disciplines as well as participating in curriculum-based tutoring models. In such models, tutors -often peer tutors- are assigned to a course to work with teachers and students in the classroom (Wallace, 1995). At the secondary level, more high schools are instituting writing centers. These centers may serve dual purposes, such as assisting students with writing while providing teachers with training on how to teach writing or integrate it into the curriculum (Spillane, 2007).

Advances in technology are also changing the way that writing centers do business. Online writing labs offer tutoring via computer conferences (Carlson & Apperson-Williams, 2008). As multimedia forms of communication become more prevalent in university coursework, centers are beginning to explore how best to help students prepare digital and hypertext presentations (Pemberton, 2008).

Even high technology doesn't remove the need for human involvement, however. Presenting a study on ways that text-to-speech software facilitates revision and the lessons for technology use in writing centers, Conard-Salvo and Sparks argued that the availability of adaptive technology in a writing center without "extensive modeling and detailed instruction" does not encourage its effective use by students (2013).

Issues

Politics & Trust

A central concern of writing center philosophy has to do with the politics of the writing center. Writing is both a personal and a political process, and the writing center is often a place where writers feel free to challenge institutional constraints. One way that writers may challenge the institution is by criticizing a professor or an assignment and inviting the tutor to share in this criticism. This poses a political concern for the tutor and the center. On the one hand, the writer seeks validation for his or her criticism. For instance, if a writer finds the assignment confusing or the professor's comments unhelpful, the writer wants confirmation that the professor is really part of the problem instead of the writer being too "dumb" to understand. Because writing center tutors generally take a supportive and encouraging position in working with students, the tutor may want to validate the student's complaint, especially if the assignment or comments are truly confusing or abrasive. On the other hand, the writing center itself is a complement to coursework in the institution. The goals of a writing center include helping students improve their ability to perform in the classroom. Thus, the writing center needs to be trusted by the faculty as well as the students. Few faculty members would be likely to support writing center activities if the center was perceived as a subversive element breeding discontent and nonconformity among the student body. So in this situation, what is the tutor to do? What policies should be in place to allow for freedom of thought while maintaining student and faculty trust? These are questions that must be negotiated between center directors and tutors as they grapple with their political place within the greater institution.

Mackiewicz and Thompson (2013) explain how motivational scaffolding strategies "operationalized through politeness" provide one way of identifying, analyzing, and discussing tutors' linguistic resources for building rapport and solidarity with students and attending to their motivation during writing center conferences. Affective connections are "essential to these conversations," the authors argue, which, at their most successful, "require high levels of cooperation among participants." Motivational scaffolding reflects tutors' care for students (2013).

Language, Culture & Power

The politics of language itself and power and control in the writing situation also create political challenges for the writing center. Language is recognized as a medium which encodes attitudes, values, beliefs and cultural perspectives (Gee, 1999). When writers choose language within a particular discourse, they indicate whether they are aware of the conventions of language use of that discourse and whether they agree with the perspectives that the language encodes. In an academic writing center, tutors are expected to assist writers to conform to academic conventions of language use, the rationale being that this will allow them to communicate within the academic writing situation. Therefore, they emphasize formal academic language and style. However, Postcolonial theorists have made it clear that the norms of academic writing favor the dominant cultural group. When students come from diverse backgrounds, asking them to adopt a culturally bound way of writing often means the elimination of diverse language forms and ideological perspectives within the academic community. When those forms are sublimated, the power structure which allows one cultural group to be dominant over another persists (Bawarshi & Pelkowski, 2008). Thus, tutors find themselves faced with the dilemma of wanting to encourage individual expression, creativity, and unique cultural language forms while being charged by both the student and the institution with helping the student to better function within the community. How best to negotiate these sometimes conflicting goals is something that every center must resolve in terms of understanding its clientele, educational philosophy, and institutional role.

Marketing the Mission

Finally, the political conundrum that can most engulf a writing center is in adopting a description that clearly and accurately describes what the center does within the larger institution. This is frequently difficult for several reasons. First, writing centers are informed by many theories and traditions and frequently engage in reflective practices that change the nature of what they do. Second, because they serve the entire educational community, some of whom are not always familiar with the principles and practices guiding the center, they are frequently misunderstood. This results in demands being made on centers that do not always mesh well with a center's self-perceptions, but which must be met in any case. For instance, many departments expect writing centers to provide remedial services, such as grammar or punctuation instruction, for struggling students. Professors may require students to take their papers to the center with the goal of having the center clean up the surface features of the text so that it is ready for submission to the instructor. A center that refuses these functions is likely to incur negative reactions from instructors and departments, which undoubtedly and justifiably believe that the center is supposed to serve their needs. Refusal to perform institutional demands can also lead to threats to funding or space that then threatens the center's viability. Thus, the challenge for every writing center is to market its purpose, function, identity, philosophy, and methodology in a way that demonstrates that the center is performing useful and necessary work for the entire community while also promoting ideas and ideologies that may run counter to those of other disciplines.

On the whole, writing centers are able to address the political issues and philosophical concerns that arise in their day to day operations by engaging in the same practices that make for good writers. Through introspection, reflection, and collaborative behaviors, writing center staff make choices regarding tutoring pedagogies and center philosophy that allow them to define a unique space in the academic institution. While centers have experienced many changes in their relatively short history, these changes are in line with the evolution of composition and educational theory overall. Thus, in the future, it can be expected that writing centers will continue to grow and change to meet the demands of new paradigms as they become known.

Terms & Concepts

Collaborative Learning: Collaborative learning occurs when students work together on a project. In writing, collaboration may occur when individuals work individually on a part of a larger writing project that they then tie together. It can also occur through writing workshops.

Curriculum-based Tutoring: In curriculum-based tutoring, a tutor collaborates with teachers to assist students in the classroom.

Directive Tutoring: Directive tutoring involves the tutor in teaching the student how to write by modeling or using other techniques that directly show the student what to do.

Expressionism: Expressionism is a Humanist philosophy that views writing as a means to self-discovery.

Humanism: Humanism is a branch of philosophy that views knowledge as a real construct that is permanent and exists despite whether humans are aware of or understand it.

Minimalist Tutoring: Minimalist tutoring is a form of tutoring where the tutor turns the act of learning back to the student. Instead of providing answers to questions, tutors ask the students questions so that they can find answers themselves.

Non-directive Tutoring: Non-directive tutoring is a form of tutoring that does not assume the tutor knows the answers. Tutors ask students questions and allow them to direct the conference.

Online Writing Labs: Online writing labs are writing centers that offer their services via computer technology and the internet.

Process Approach to Writing: The Process Approach to writing focuses on the stages of writing. Teachers using the Process Approach teach strategies that students can use during each stage of the process and emphasize revision as an important part of writing.

Social Constructionism: Social constructionism views knowledge as being made from the interactions of people within social, historical, and cultural contexts. Language is an essential element of knowledge construction in this view.

Traditional Rhetoric: Current traditional rhetoric is a philosophy that emphasizes the grammatical form and structure of a written text as being the most important aspect of writing.

Writing Across the Curriculum: Writing across the curriculum programs attempt to integrate writing within all disciplines as a way to improve critical thinking and writing skills.

Bibliography

Bawarshi, A., & Pelkowski, S. (2008). Postcolonialism and the idea of a writing center. In C. Murphy & S. Sherwood (Eds.), The St. Martin's sourcebook for writing tutors (pp. 79-95). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L., Chavkin, T., Fouquette, D., & Garufis, J. (2005). Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. WAC Clearinghouse: Parlor Press. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from Colorado State University http://www.wac.colostate.edu/books/bazerman%5fwac/

Brooks, J. (2008). Minimalist tutoring: Making the student do all the work. In C. Murphy & S. Sherwood (Eds.), The St. Martin's sourcebook for writing tutors (pp. 168-173). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Carlson, D. A., & Apperson-Williams, E. (2008). The anxieties of distance: Online tutors reflect. In C. Murphy & S. Sherwood (Eds.), The St. Martin's sourcebook for writing tutors(pp. 285-294). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Conard-Salvo, T., & Spartz, J.M. (2012). Listening to revise: what a study about text-to-speech software taught us about students' expectations for technology use in the writing center. Writing Center Journal, 32, 40-59. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86273568&site=ehost-live

Corbett, S.J. (2011). Using case study multi-methods to investigate close(r) collaboration: course-based tutoring and the directive/nondirective instructional continuum. Writing Center Journal, 31, 55-81. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66170498&site=ehost-live

Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.

Kail, H., & Trimbur, J. (1995). The politics of peer tutoring. In C. Murphy & J. Law (Eds.) Landmark essays on writing centers (pp. 203-209). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

Lunsford, A. (2008). Collaboration, control, and the idea of a writing center. In C. Murphy & S. Sherwood (Eds.), The St. Martin's sourcebook for writing tutors (pp. 47-53). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2013). Motivational scaffolding, politeness, and writing center tutoring. Writing Center Journal, 33, 38-73. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89983582&site=ehost-live

Moore, R. H. (1995). The writing clinic and the writing laboratory. In C. Murphy & J. Law (Eds.) Landmark essays on writing centers (pp. 3-9). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

Murphy, C., & Sherwood, S. (2008). The tutoring process. In C. Murphy & S. Sherwood (Eds.), The St.Martin's sourcebook for writing tutors (pp. 1-25). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

North, S.M. (2008). The idea of a writing center. In C. Murphy & S. Sherwood (Eds.), The St. Martin's sourcebook for writing tutors (pp. 32-46). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Pemberton, M. A. (2008). Planning for hypertexts in the writing center… or not. In C. Murphy & S. Sherwood (Eds.), The St. Martin's sourcebook for writing tutors (pp. 294-308). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Spillane, L.A. (2006). The reading writing center: What we can do. The Clearing House, 80, 63-65. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24558071&site=ehost-live

Wallace, R. (1995). The writing center's role in the writing across the curriculum program: Theory and practice. In C. Murphy & J. Law (Eds.) Landmark essays on writing centers (pp. 191-195). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

Shamoon, L. K., & Burns, D. H. (2008). A critique of pure tutoring. In C. Murphy & S. Sherwood (Eds.),The St. Martin's sourcebook for writing tutors (pp. 173-188). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Trupe, A.L. (2001). A Process Approach to writing. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from Bridgewater College www.bridgewater.edu/WritingCenter/Resources/process.htm

Suggested Reading

Barnett, R. W., & Blumner, J.S. (1999). Writing centers and writing across the curriculum Programs. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts / plural authors. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Murphy, C., & Law, J. (1995).Landmark essays on writing centers. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.