This article highlights ways writing center administrators (WCAs) can integrate Generative AI (GenAI) into tutor training, focusing specifically on role-playing exercises. Drawing on modified prompts from Mollick and Mollick (2023, 2024), I provide two scenarios for tutors-in-training: GenAI as Tutor and GenAI as Student. These scenarios allow tutors to engage with GenAI from both perspectives, offering opportunities to practice tutoring skills, reflect on their practices, and critically evaluate GenAI’s effectiveness as a tutor. Rather than presenting a formal research study, this piece aims to make the practice of using GenAI in tutor training more accessible by showcasing how prompts were adapted for a writing center context. While challenges in implementation remain, these activities demonstrate the potential benefits of incorporating GenAI into tutor preparation.

Providing comments on student writing is one of the most important, difficult, and time-consuming activities instructors undertake. Many studies have examined written feedback, and much research has shown the problems associated with this form, ranging from time spent providing thoughtful feedback to students’ confusion about the commentary. Some instructors have used audio commentary to address these issues. Audio commentary has been researched for years; the results have indicated that students prefer audio commentary, and it is perceived as more personal and positive by instructors and students. To date, little research has looked closely at audio commentary to understand if or how it might differ from written in form and function. This research uses as multicase approach and genre analysis to examine the organisational moves and discourse analysis uncover why audio commentary is perceived differently by both producers and consumers of this genre. Results show that audio commentary does not differ in form or function from its written counterpart, but metadiscursive features may play a role in how the genre is perceived by both instructors and students, providing real evidence of how audio commentary is different from written.

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.