Introduction: Faculty members have little time and usually lack expertise to provide writing feedback on lab reports. Sending students to a writing center, an existing resource on virtually all college campuses, could fill that gap. However, the majority of peer writing tutors are in nontechnical majors, and little research exists on training them to provide support for engineering students. Research question: Can peer writing tutors without technical backgrounds be trained to provide effective feedback to engineering students? About the case: Previously, sending students to the writing center was ineffective. The students did not see the value, and the tutors did not feel capable of providing feedback to them. To remedy this situation, an interdisciplinary training method was developed collaboratively by an engineering professor and the writing center director. Situating the case: Researchers have suggested that effective writing center help for engineering students is possible, and the authors have designed an interdisciplinary training method that has produced positive results. Supporting literature includes the use of generalist tutors, writing in the disciplines, genre theory, and knowledge transfer. Methods/approach: This was a three-year experiential project conducted in a junior-level engineering course. The assignment, a lab report, remained the same. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from students and tutors. Results/discussion: Tutor feedback and student satisfaction significantly improved. However, a few students who were satisfied overall still expressed interest in having their reports reviewed by a tutor with a technical background. Conclusions: Interdisciplinary tutor training can improve the feedback of peer writing tutors, providing support for faculty efforts to improve student writing. The method requires minimal faculty time and capitalizes on existing resources.

This tutorial on how to teach report writing is based on the premise that decision-making is a complex process that derives from both rational and quasi-rational ways of knowing the world. The author defines quasi-rational to include consideration of hunches, intuition, and tacit knowledge often embodied in stories that have meaning to the decision-maker. Thus, report writing can be approached as a systematic evaluation of options available given goals and constraints, but also as an uncovering of the narratives that decision-makers see surrounding their own lives. The tutorial explains a course curriculum structured in three sections with the following goals and strategies: (1) helping students face personal or family decisions through a traditional decision-matrix process that also incorporates elements of rhetorical stasis theory, (2) using big case studies to reveal the interplay between rational and quasi-rational thought in decision-making, and (3) finding case studies in the students' local geographic regions in order to further explore this interplay. The paper concludes with a brief assessment of how the author's students responded to such a course

Writing tutors are encouraged to use compliments in their interactions with technical writing students. However, the form of compliments strongly influences how they function. Specifically, formulaic compliments like "It's good" function differently from nonformulaic compliments like "The size is excellent in terms of visually aiding the reader." A total of 107 compliments were analyzed from 13 interactions between 12 writing tutors and 12 engineering students. About 61% of tutors' compliments followed one of six formulae, and about 39% were nonformulaic. Formulaic compliments were general and mainly performed a phatic function, filling pauses and avoiding silence, particularly in interaction closings. Nonformulaic compliments were more specific and individualized, and they may, therefore, be more instructive than formulaic compliments. Nonformulaic compliments also performed an exploratory function, allowing participants to renegotiate discourse status. This study points to other avenues of research, particularly research that systemically examines writers' perceptions of formulaic and nonformulaic feedback, such as compliments.

This study examines the frequency with which 12 writing tutors used hints in their suggestions to 12 engineering students in 13 interactions about technical writing. Of the 424 suggestions tutors made, 106 were hints. Using Weizman's model as a guide, the study describes three types of hints that tutors used: evaluations, general rules, and elisions. It also investigates the benefits that tutors receive from using those types of hints and examines the problems for students that can arise when tutors state their suggestions as hints. Combined with previous research findings, the findings of this study suggest that tutors should pair mildly negative evaluations and general rules with direct suggestions, and tutors should avoid strongly negative evaluations, i.e., criticisms. The findings also suggest that tutors can elude suggestions and provide words and phrases for students' documents but that they should only do this occasionally to model effective tone or syntax.

Writing tutors often have very little or no expertise in conventions of engineering writing. In this study, I examine the topics and politeness strategies of tutors' comments, investigating how non-expertise in engineering writing decreases the effectiveness of tutors' interactions with engineering students. I show how the three non-expert tutors gave inappropriate advice and often stated their advice with certainty. I also show how a tutor with expertise in engineering writing gave specific and useful guidance to her tutee and built rapport with him as well. I outline how writing tutors could be trained to help engineering students better.