With the large numbers of international students on campuses across the United States seeking help from writing centers, more research is needed on how second language writing skills develop over time. Expanding our previous studies of second language writing, we wanted to learn more about what international students think about the development of their ability to write in English and the role of the writing center in it. To that end, we designed a survey that asked participants about different features of their writing and how these had changed since starting to write at the college level. The results reveal that participants perceived their overall English-writing development positively, and they reported their rhetorical and linguistic areas as almost equal in development. We also found that participants who used our writing center perceived both rhetorical and linguistic features to be more improved than did participants who had not used the writing center. The rhetorical features participants reported as the least improved involve communicating with readers, while the linguistic features they saw as the least developed include word

While writing center scholarship acknowledges tutoring is an emotional endeavor, there has been little attention given to how tutors respond to the stressful facets of their role. In this study, peer writing tutors were surveyed about their engagement in emotional labor and work-related stress in three areas: (a) perceived reasons for emotionally laborious sessions; (b) emotions felt; and (c) strategies employed for emotion regulation and coping with stress. Thematic analysis of responses indicated the perceived reasons included issues in (a) session expectations, (b) tutor-writer dynamics, and (c) emotion regulation. Tutors generally reported more negative emotions than positive ones. However, a majority of tutors reported engaging in adaptive active and internal coping strategies to manage their work-related stressors. A select few tutors reported engaging in maladaptive coping strategies alongside adaptive ones. While results reflect a positive outlook for tutors' abilities to manage their stress, results indicate engagement in emotional labor is a regular task for tutors. Writing centers may benefit from considering stress management as a part of their tutor-training programs to maintain and promote well-being. Practical implications and possible avenues for stress interventions are given.

This article explores beliefs writing center stakeholders and practitioners hold about online writing centers (OWCs) in terms of OWC services available at their current institutions and in terms of any prior experience tutoring online. Beliefs about OWCs can influence whether writing centers offer online services, whether tutors find their work in OWCs satisfying or disheartening, and how OWCs are created technologically and theoretically. These beliefs are explored through a convenience-sample survey of writing center stakeholders and practitioners. This survey finds that while practitioners and stakeholders have overall positive beliefs about the purpose of OWCs, experience influences both positive and negative beliefs, with less experienced respondents tending toward beliefs that OWCs must be synchronous to be effective, that it is difficult to communicate or build rapport with students in OWCs, and that OWCs are convenient. While scholarship on OWCs indicates there are many effective methods and means for implementing OWCs, each with its own limitations and opportunities, there is still work to do in addressing how OWC scholarship fits with the beliefs and experiences-or inexperience-of individual writing center stakeholders and practitioners.

As online writing tutorials become increasingly widespread, writing center scholars continue to debate the pedagogical differences between face-to-face and online tutoring However, empirical research has lagged behind technological advancement, with only one study (Wolfe & Griffin, 2012) comparing face-to-face and media-rich online writing center tutorials. This article builds on such scholarship by sharing results from a comparative study of face-to-face and synchronous audio-video online tutorials that collected data from writing tutorials, writers' postsession surveys, and interviews with writers. Using primarily linguistic analysis of the hundreds of interactions in each of the 24 transcribed writing tutorials, we determined that audio-video online and face-to-face sessions share similarities in tutoring strategies, discourse phases, tutor-writer interaction, and student satisfaction. However, significant differences were found

In the intimate spaces of writing centers, how do we advocate for students-as well as tutors and directors-who closet or guard private struggles, particularly when they feel less than safe revealing who they are amid larger public controversies? This is a central question

It makes sense that writing studies scholars, from their position on the frontlines of academic writing support, would be among the first to notice graduate student needs around writing. In the 1980s, scholars began pointing out why this population of writers deserves more attention. Fast forward to today, popular

He was professor emeritus of English at Brooklyn College, where he taught for many years and at various times directed the first-year English program, founded and directed the writing center, and directed the Scholars Program and Honors Academy. He is an exemplary figure for writing center and composition scholars because he was instrumental in establishing and conceptualizing peer tutoring in the teaching of writing. Bruffee began experimenting with peer tutoring in the 1970s as a response to the open-admissions policies that almost overnight brought hundreds of underprepared students to City University of New York campuses. Peer tutoring, he discovered, worked surprisingly well in that context. Properly prepared and situated, undergraduate student tutors

Ignoring race is understood to be a graceful, even generous, liberal gesture. To notice is to recognize an

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region comprises a vast area among three continents-Europe, Asia, and Africa. While there are no standardized lists of MENA countries, the following countries and terri-

Writing centers generally espouse tutoring policies for native speakers intended to help students improve their writing skills through minimalist intervention and a reliance on student intuition. At the same time, researchers have recommended somewhat directive tutorials for L2 writers who may lack native-speaker intuitions about culture or language. Yet the literature is unclear about whether L1, L2, and Generation 1.5 writers observe a difference in writing center practices based on their language background. This study examines the reported expectations and experiences of 462 writing center tutees by grouping them according to their language background (L1, L2, and Generation 1.5) and comparing their expectations with their reported writing center experiences on eight measures of tutorial behavior. Results indicate that all writers reported receiving similar and directive tutorials, a finding that differs from discourse-analytic results. The findings further demonstrate differences in what writers expect, with L1 writers expecting reflective tutorials, Generation 1.5 writers expecting negotiation, and L2 writers expecting directiveness. While necessarily abstract, results can nonetheless be useful in pre-or in-service tutor training in centers with high concentrations of Generation 1.5 or L2 writers.

Heeding previous scholars' calls for a critical investigation of the role of reflection in the professional development of tutors, this article examines reflections written by tutors in the context of conference records. More specifically, the authors investigate the consequences of incorporating a prompt to reflect on tutoring strategies into our online conference-records database. The authors first present the results of their opening coding of nearly 300 conference records, offering a taxonomy of specific types of reflections found in the conference records. The authors then identify three shifts in the content of conference records written after the introduction of the reflection prompt. Finally, the authors draw on analysis of tutor interviews to illuminate how the positive influence of the reflection prompt is inextricably linked to a larger culture of reflection that is often collaborative and leads to transfer of learning within and beyond the writing center.

This study explores the impact of tutor talk on students' revision practices. We applied Mackiewicz & Thompson's scheme for classifying tutoring strategies from their 2015 Talk about Writing, with some variation to suit our writing center context. With an exclusive focus on tutor talk, they did not assess the impact of tutor talk on the writing itself nor on the writer's responses to the conversation with the tutor. Thus, in our study we sought evidence of a relationship between the different types or patterns of tutor talk and the extent of revisions a writer made to their essay after a writing center session. Our mixed-methods study found that in 80% of sessions (n=8), students revised based on tutor talk, and in two sessions, students applied tutor talk to sections of their paper not discussed in the session.

First-generation college students (FGCS) are a growing student population in the United States. Because of the barriers they face, these students are more likely to drop out or fall behind than are their multigenerational peers. This article presents the results of a case study on FGCS and their use of the writing center conducted at a midsized, southeastern, public university. The study analyzed the WCOnline appointment and consultation report forms of self-identified FGCS and multigeneration college students (MGCS) who used the writing center in order to learn more about the needs, perceptions, and experiences of FGCS as writers. Results indicate FGCS' appointments cover more ground, use more directive approaches, are more likely to include negative language and emotional affect, and focus on global concerns and genre/rhetorical knowledge at more frequent rates than do MGCS' appointments. Based on results, recommendations for improving writing support for FGCS and further research are made.

Dissertation boot camp (DBC) programs have been adopted at many postsecondary institutions across North America over the last decade. Responding to Simpson's (2013) call for writing centers to do more than simply share anecdotal information about the effects of their DBC programs, the authors of this mixed-methods study assess the benefits of these programs for doctoral students. The study evaluates three DBC delivery models-online, sustained, and retreat-in order to determine each model's effect on doctoral students' writing behaviors, confidence levels, and anxiety. By conducting a more robust statistical analysis than has been possible in other preliminary work on DBC programming, the paper corroborates Busl, Donnelly, & Capdevielle's (2015) finding that "Writing Process" DBCs are more beneficial to doctoral students than "Just Write" DBCs. The authors ultimately find that doctoral students experience positive outcomes from all three DBC models and are likely to self-select based on the model that best suits their individual needs. The results of this study indicate that postsecondary institutions ought to consider offering a variety of DBC programming in order to meet the needs of diverse graduate-student populations.

This article examines the unique perspectives of nine writing center practitioners reflecting on the experience of conducting a collaborative and multi-tiered research project in their center. The focus of their work is on the process of conducting research rather than the product; therefore, much of the work is on how research is conducted and how it functions as an avenue for professional development, creating community, and benefitting the center. The article includes narratives from all of the researchers: undergraduate students, graduate students, and administrators/ faculty members. Each narrative presents positive experiences, insights, and obstacles encountered for each group of researchers. The article concludes with recommendations that could benefit others conducting multi-tiered research.

Buck captures how writing center studies scholars and scholarship adapt to changes in

To better understand interaction between consultants and writers and reveal more about the daily work in writing centers, this exploratory, discourse-based study uses conversation analysis to take an "unmotivated look" at data.Through initial transcription, a new discourse feature, the oral writing-revision space, or OR, emerged.The OR has not been previously identified in either writing center or conversation analysis literature.This emergent discourse feature functions in several important ways, allowing both consultants and writers to navigate the session by taking on more or less responsibility as needed.Further, this research presents the OR as a framework for better understanding interaction and scaffolding in writing center sessions and has implications for tutor training, challenging lore, and discourse-based research.

Each of these students was a participant in our study of working-class students who use the writing center. They are typical of our interviewees, and they are also typical, in many ways, of the students who visit writing centers across the country. As Beth Boquet (1999) notes, writing centers are arenas in which wider institutional currents become material. In particular, writing centers are places where inequality-unequal access to educational resources-is made manifest. Students like Brandon, Talisha, and Juanita grew up in families and communities where getting a college degree was not the norm and where a college education did not seem entirely necessary. Or at least that was the case in the past, when our students' parents were coming of age. The students we interviewed felt that, anymore, college degrees have become a necessity for anyone who wants to make a decent living, and they were each trying to work toward that goal. But in many ways, working-class students' lives before college have not prepared them for what they encounter on college campuses. And-other side of the same coin-the colleges they attend are not fully prepared for them either. All colleges make implicit assumptions about students-what they need, what they want-but students like our interviewees come with a host of expectations and needs colleges have not fully anticipated.

Students' misunderstanding of faculty expectations for paraphrase has been empirically demonstrated, and many writing centers conduct workshops to help students adopt better strategies for work with sources. However, little empirical research supports the effectiveness of such efforts. For this study, researchers examined students' attempts to paraphrase before and after a 45-minute workshop presented by an undergraduate peer tutor in several sections of an introductory political science course. Our findings demonstrate that the workshop did help students improve both their understanding of what is expected of them and their attempts to paraphrase. The average score for language increased from 3.11 in the pretest to 3.86 on a 5-point scale in the posttest (n=107, p.001). However, as many students improved at avoiding patchwriting, the quality of their representation of an idea from a source appeared to decline; ideas scores dropped after the workshop from 3.36 to 3.03 (n=107, p.01). The drop

No two writing programs or writing centers are alike even within the United States. Add those distinctions already present in U.S. educational spaces to the historic, educational, linguistic, and cultural contexts of writing programs and writing centers situated

Not only is the book authored by three of the field's most recognized and consequential scholars, but the belief-and the desire to share the belief-that writing is meaningful lies at the heart of writing center identity. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the book only occasionally mentions writing centers; however, this should not suggest its relevance to writing center studies is limited. On the contrary, the authors show that experiencing a writing project as meaningful is "a shared phenomenon, one deeply enmeshed in our experiences of schooling in this country and in our experiences with writing and writing instruction" (p. 22). The Meaningful Writing Project speaks to anyone invested in student writing. For writing centers, it

Writing Centers Association conference last March, I was fascinated and asked him about it.

Tengo un recuerdo. Over the weekend, I'd observe my to work on cars. He'd pop the hood, turn the vehicle on, and listen. He'd step back and look at me and say, "Listen mi'jo to the car." He'd lean back in and work to locate the problem. My to taught me about the capacious work involved in listening, the type of listening that centers the corporeal body as sensuous within and between the physical, temporal, and symbolic. Learning to listen as such situated me in space, place, and time. My ethos and politics of being, seeing, and doing emerged from these points of references.

From 2012 to 2015, the online grammar program Grammarly was claimed to complement writing center services by 1. increasing student access to writing support; and 2. addressing sentence-level issues, such as grammar. To test if Grammarly could close these two gaps in writing center services, this article revisits the results of a Spring 2014 study that compared Grammarly' s comment cards to the written feedback of 10 asynchronous online consultants. The results showed that both Gram-marly and some consultants strayed from effective practices regarding limiting feedback, avoiding technical language, and providing accurate information about grammatical structure. However, the consultants' weaknesses could be addressed with enhanced or focused training, and their strengths allowed for important learning opportunities that enable student access to information across mediums and help students establish connections between their sentences and the larger whole. This article concludes that each writing center should consider their own way of closing these gaps and offers suggestions for multiple consultation genres, new services, and strategies for sentence-level concerns.

This article examines writing center administrators (WCAs) in relationship to conditions that influence their institutional status and scholarly identity. Drawing upon survey and interview data, we elaborate on four themes that shape WCAs' experiences: 1. education and training; 2. position and institutional oversight; 3. financial resources; and 4. sponsorship. While these factors do not impact all WCAs in the same ways, we believe they influence WCAs' empirical research production and their relationships with department-based colleagues in interesting albeit context-dependent ways when viewed across the experiences of the current study's participants and those queried in earlier studies. After examining the implications of these factors -factors that suggest a separate and unequal WCA experience -we first propose the need for more comprehensive study of current professionals in our field to determine the degree to which the themes that emerged from our sample resonate

Born in Fairbanks, Alaska, Michael Spooner, like many of the young people in his generation did, like many academics and alternative types do, turned 17 and moved along. Editing found him in Illinois in the 1980s, luring him with the promise of windowsills with pots of violets, scotch-laced lunches, Chesterfield straights, and the opportunity to be positioned as a friend of texts-in-process, manuscripts before they're neat and clean and bound, manuscripts when they're writers who are working through ideas. He was coaxed by the mountains and Joyce Kinkead to head to Logan, Utah in 1993 where he breathed life into Utah State University Press, increasing annual acquisitions from three books a year to over twenty, providing the opportunity for some of our most important and foundational texts to shape our community and field.

^^^B This article reports the findings of a study on cooperative tutoring, which is a variation of the one-to-one tutoring method. Cooperative ^^^B tutoring, as practiced in this study, consists of two tutors who work ^^^B collaboratively with one student; however, there are other models of ^^^B cooperative tutoring that could be developed. Cooperative tutoring ^^^B described in this article is an adaptation of one method of training new ^^^B tutors, where the novice tutor observes the expert tutor during a tu-^^^B toring session and eventually participates with the expert tutor. Where ^^^B cooperative tutoring differs from this training model is that it involves ^^^B two tutors with a range of tutoring experiences working together with ^^^B one stu(ient. This study focuses specifically on the interactions between ^^^B tutors in cooperative tutoring sessions. I explain the methodology ^^^B used to set up the study and to analyze the data, which is informed by ^^^B grounded theory. I present an interpretation of the data from two of

Although research on tutoring nonnative speaker (NNS) students has grown in the past two decades, many of these studies have either predominantly focused on native speaker (NS) tutors or have been written with the assumption that all tutors are NSs.Thus, NNS tutors have been largely neglected.The purpose of this study is to examine how one NNS student interacts with one NNS tutor and one NS tutor in a writing center at the college level.These two sessions were video-taped, transcribed, and then analyzed in detail using the methodology of conversation analysis.After each session was analyzed, a retrospective interview with the NNS student was conducted to explore her opinions of these tutorials.Interview data shows that the NNS student preferred the NS tutor over the NNS tutor by virtue of their NNS/NS status.The conversation analysis of the actual tutorials, however, reveals that the NNS student preference is likely due to the fact that the NS tutor's

Listening is often considered essential to the tutoring of writing; however, little attention has been devoted to the study of listening in writing center scholarship. This study takes up the question of how the field defines effective listening and how the field conceptualizes listening as a practice for the tutoring of writing. Based on a qualitative content analysis of eight writing center tutor guidebooks, the study's findings show that although listening is typically considered an effective strategy in addressing interpersonal aspects and writing concerns in the writing conference, it is not well defined in the field. Ultimately, the article suggests that the field may benefit from attention to rhetorical listening as a way to broaden how we define not only effective listening but also roles for tutoring and learning.

Reading and writing are widely understood as connected practices, but writing center studies has been slow to join the larger conversation in composition studies about writing's relationship to reading. Despite the field's neglect of reading in its research and scholarship, writing center professionals regularly work with reading because most college writing assignments are accompanied by or draw on reading in some way. Be-

Much of the scholarship on writing centers narrates the stories of writers and their texts as told by tutors, administrators, and researchers. In an effort to bring writers' voices to the forefront, this empirical study examines the types of questions and concerns writers have about their writing as submitted through the Purdue Writing Lab's OWL Mail, an online, asynchronous question-and-answer email platform. Through the employment of what Richard H. Haswell ( The implications of these results and the ways they may inform tutor preparation in response to writers' email inquiries are discussed. Suggestions for future research are also provided.

In recent years, scholars within the writing center community have urged for improved research practices within the held.Lore and experience have long been the field's guiding influence.In response, many writing center professionals have called for action, rightly suggesting that rigorous research will invigorate the field.Lore has its place in informing scholarship, as others have pointed out (Babcock & Thonus, 2012;Gillam, 2002;Gillespie, 2002;Sosnoski, 1991).But reliance on lore alone leads to missed opportunities and can result in scholarly stagnation (Eodice, Jordan, & Price, 2015; Wcenter threads; calls for action lodged over and over indicating that the call is going largely unanswered).Discussions surrounding the format of asynchronous online tutoring exemplify the shortcomings of relying on lore alone; a format that could have represented an innovation has instead been largely relegated to the sidelines of the field.This article traces the conversation surrounding asynchronous online tutoring in order to demonstrate the divide that occurs when the field relies on lore.Then,