Many engineering undergraduates receive their first and perhaps most intensive exposure to engineering communication through writing lab reports in lab courses taught by graduate teaching assistants (TAs). Most of the TAs' teaching of writing happens through their comments on students' lab reports. Technical writing faculty need to be aware of TAs' response practices so they can build on or counteract that instruction as needed. This study examines the response practices of two TAs and the ways the practices shifted after the TAs began using a grading rubric. The analysis reveals distinct patterns in focus and mode, some reflecting best practices and some not. It also indicates encouraging changes after the TAs started using the grading rubric. The TAs' marginalia became more content focused and specific and, perhaps most important, less authoritative and more likely to reflect a coaching mode. The article concludes with implications for technical writing courses.

This study provides descriptive analysis of a 20-hour training program to prepare peer tutors to work in a writing lab. The subjects included 20 first-year MBA students who demonstrated proficiency in writing and interpersonal skills. Nine students chose to participate. The analysis includes conversations, actions, and reflections of peer tutors during the training period. The process involved instructors with peer-tutor training experience, a selection procedure that incorporated a student-centered philosophy, several general meetings to orient and deal with concerns about tutoring, and a number of simulated sessions that moved the tutors from sentence- to discourse-level concerns.