Questions are an important means by which students actively participate in and exercise some control over the moment-to-moment focus of writing center conferences. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis of student questions in 35 writing center conferences, we examined the frequency and type of students’ questions, finding no differences between native English speakers and non-native English speakers’ overall question frequency or their use of each question type. Students used common-ground questions most frequently, and knowledge-deficit questions second-most frequently. Our qualitative analysis revealed how students used questions to coconstruct potential language for their papers and to steer the course of their conferences. It also revealed the dilemma that arises when a student’s questions probe not only the tutor’s writing knowledge but also their subject-matter knowledge. This study demonstrates some ways that students take power over their conferences by asking questions and indicates that tutors might expect similar question frequency and similar types of questions from NESs and NNESs. It also suggests that tutors might use the tutoring strategy of reading aloud to create conversational openings for students’ questions. And it suggests potential benefits of attending to the type of questions that students use, as these types can indicate on a local level the extent of students’ contribution to their papers.

Preview this article: Redefining Collaboration through the Extended Work of Writing Center Tutors: How Undergraduate Research Expands Opportunities for Collaboration in Higher Education, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/84/6/collegeenglish31993-1.gif

This article presents findings from a study of a U.K. university writing centre regarding understandings of tutor roles, involving 33 Chinese international students, 11 writing tutors, and the centre director. The research used interviews and audio-recorded consultations as data to analyze and explore participants’ beliefs and understandings. The most common roles associated with tutors were proofreader, coach, commentator, counsellor, ally, and teacher. Mismatches were found in understandings of the proofreader role and counsellor role when comparing students’ views, tutors’ views, and the writing centre policy. Policy recommendations are made in light of the findings regarding how writing centres frame the tutor’s role and the function of writing consultations, in terms of (1) interrogating traditional conceptualizations of tutor role, (2) disseminating the centre’s aims to the student population and to the wider university, (3) expanding the centre’s activity across the university, and (4) strengthening tutor training and development.

This TETYC symposium centers anti-ableist action across two-year college institutional contexts, including the writing classroom (Olivas), writing centers (Van Dyke and Lovett), a Writing Across the Curriculum Program (Rousculp), and basic writing (Naomi Bernstein). Taken together, these authors offer insights into establishing anti-ableist practices in two-year college English studies with careful attention to multiple marginalized identities.

In this article, I examine how the language circulated by two-year college writing center websites impacts discursive understandings of disability and offer recommendations for more accessible documentation practices grounded in critical disability studies and technical and professional communication theory.

Utilizing Sara Ahmed’s work on “brick walls,” this article discusses a qualitative study of stories shared by twenty-five women writing center directors and the possible insights gleaned if we choose to “notice through feminism,” (Ahmed) and advocate for change across writing studies.

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.

A Critical Field Scan of Theory and History, Practice and Place. " Our idea for this issue was a simple one. As the title suggests, we hoped to generate a "field scan, " illustrating the ways in which community literacy programs draw upon theory, along with their respective regional geographies, past practices, and collective histories, to create community-engaged writing and literacy centers.

This essay will focus on student campaigns to stop deportations at Krome Detention Center between 2013-2017 in Miami, Florida. This advocacy work shaped a letter writing project between my university writing center and a detention center. Writing in this context, then, is a collective act, challenging a prison industrial complex that impacts both the classroom and community. The work of student organizers can challenge

In 2013, Westminster College in Salt

In this article, we share our experiences with the ongoing language and literacy practices and pedagogies of a bilingual, community-based writing center located in South Philadelphia's Italian Market. This writing center -one in a network of sites across Philadelphia and southern New Jersey -targeted bilingual, Latinx children from ages seven to eighteen. For the past four years, we have partnered with the center to create a translanguaging space. Here, we reflect on the experience of offering translanguaging writing workshops.

This interview is not the first in Reflections for Tom Deans, a Professor of English and Director of the Writing Center at the University of Connecticut. His first interview appeared in issue 1.1 of Reflections and focused on his work as chair of the recently created CCCC national service-learning committee dedicated to creating “disciplinary momentum”&hellip; Continue reading &#8216;You’re Not Alone’: An Interview with Tom Deans about Supporting Community Engagement by Eric Mason

This article describes the development of a community writing and publishing program, the DiverseCity Writing Series, from 1998 to 2005. Starting as a one-time workshop between a community college English service-learning course and a local women’s advocacy organization, the DiverseCity Writing Series has grown into a year-round partnership between the SLCC Community Writing Center and&hellip; Continue reading When the Community Writes: Re-envisioning the SLCC DiverseCity Writing Series by Tiffany Rousculp

Writing centres do not often publish the work of people who attend them. Perhaps this is a paradoxical omission that this anthology may help to remedy, since it demonstrates the value of showcasing workshop writing. The pieces in Sine Cera: A DiverseCity Writing Series Anthology are, as Series Coordinator Jeremy Remy says, &#8220;pieces that might&hellip; Continue reading Review of Sine Cera: A DiverseCity Writing Series Anthology: Two Old Guys From Brooklyn by SLCC Community Writing Centre by Nick Pollard

This article reports on one university’s experiment in resurrecting and reanimating the composition lecture, a one-hundred-plus student section dubbed “MonsterComp,” including the process, outcomes, and lessons learned. Although this restructuring of the first-year composition course was partially motivated by administrative pressures, the main motivation behind this experiment was to enhance teacher training and support while still retaining the workshop environment and low student-to-instructor ratio of traditional composition sections. The course involves multiple stakeholders, including the WPA and graduate student program coordinators, graduate student instructors, and course-based coaches from our university's writing center. Assessment of student work, observations of the course, and surveys administered to stakeholders indicate that the course was successful in terms of teacher training and preserving student learning outcomes.