Abstract An English major chronicles a “day in the life” of a college student during the 2020–21 school year—the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The narrative begins with stress-related dreams, continues with daily activities (walking through seemingly deserted halls and attending Hyflex classes, facilitating remote writing center sessions and leading campus meetings), and ends with the author settling down for the night, settling being an ironic and apt term to describe the author's sense of his academic year.

AbstractThis article examines the value undergraduate research adds to writing centers in their role as anchor institutions within English and across college and university campuses. It focuses on a pilot project conducted by a team of mentored peer tutors who researched the accessibility of writing at Marquette University. Their successes and failures show how, beyond research findings, undergraduate research experience can be consequential for practitioners and their communities.

AbstractUndergraduate-staffed writing centers, tutor-preparation courses, and writing center studies have been and continue to be ideally suited for undergraduate research in English studies. Though requiring resources, planning, and a reconsideration of humanities scholarship, the benefits of writing center undergraduate research are many, including enabling students to develop unique and authentic questions and answers while enhancing their research and tutoring skills, reframing students’ roles within higher education, and preparing humanities majors for a range of career paths.

While resilience often defines writing center survival strategies, resistance offers a familiar stance in relation to dominant classroom and institutional practices. However, both resilience and resistance are indexed to a perceived “normal,” and violations of normativity have consequences not always imagined in individual tutoring sessions or theoretical discussions.

Though enrollment of learning-disability (LD) students is on the rise in higher education, instructors are often underprepared to effectively support them. The composition pedagogy community needs more discussion of strategies to help LD students in the writing classroom. Scholarship on writing tutoring suggests that one such strategy is to exhibit active and intentional empathy. Tutoring pedagogy has long advocated approaching students with compassion through strategies such as empathic listening and interrogative, coparticipatory dialogue. To best serve all of our students, particularly those with learning disabilities or attention deficit disorders or who are on the autism spectrum, composition instructors should look to tutoring pedagogy’s model of a nonhierarchical, interrogatory, listening-based approach to working with students. These strategies begin with empathy for our students.

This article argues that writing centers must recognize themselves as already reading centered and prepare tutors to teach multiple ways of reading because current writing center scholarship does not help sufficiently with nonliterary reading work and because doing so would position centers to fully support students as they work within the wealth of “new” reading pedagogy and curriculum that has surfaced (or resurfaced) in recent years. It discusses the limitations of tutor handbooks in supporting tutors in reading-focused sessions and offers a tangible tool for helping tutors begin thinking and talking about reading work, ending with a call for writing centers to reconceptualize themselves as reading centered in order to embrace and explore “new” reading pedagogies through research and practice.

The books under review here envision models of professional development not as episodes of developing skills or training faculty to conform to changing laws, rules, and pet projects of administrators, but rather as collaborative processes of education and reflection that encourage faculty to rethink their practices. They draw on research in composition theory and pedagogy, suggesting that more effective learning takes place when teachers trust learners to consider their own need for knowledge, invite learners to devise variations and applications of received knowledge, and resist keeping things simple to be sure they are correct. Applying different focuses, these books consider how to put teacher-learners at the center of the process of their own professional development. Jeffrey Jablonski argues that the expertise developed in composition studies needs to be recognized and respected in initiatives to implement Cross-Curricular Literacy programs. The writers of The Everyday Writing Center consider how, in the midst of increased professionalization, to maintain the serendipitous—even carnivalesque, at times—learning and teaching that the intimate and nonhierarchical space of a writing center can foster. And the collective wisdom in The Writing Center Director's Resource Book surveys the current state of writing center theory and practice, providing a reflective guide for developing the expertise of writing center administrators, who are (or could be) leaders in campus faculty development efforts.

In this article, an English education professor, a university writing center administrator, and a recent graduate of an undergraduate English education program discuss the role peer tutoring might play in enhancing the education of preservice teachers of writing. The authors argue that by providing additional, authentic field experiences which reflect constructivist, student-centered philosophies often adhered to in English education programs, university peer tutoring can provide undergraduate students with authentic experience in learning collaboratively, developing rapport with students, and conducting student-centered, one-to-one writing conferences.