Drawing on results from a survey distributed nationally through the WPA and WCenter listservs, we examine the affective aspect of failure in teachers’ responses to student writing, aiming to pinpoint teachers’ perceptions of why students fail. Overall, we posit that writing studies needs to pay closer attention to teachers’ emotional responses to student failure. This article represents a step in that direction.

This article offers readers a case study of a course-based tutoring partnership that frames and enhances the focus on the stories of three participants—two with learning disabilities. The first part engages arguments involving connections between learning-disabled and typical basic writing students to ask the important question: should learning-disabled students receive more institutionally sanctioned time, attention, and pedagogical care than mainstream students, especially if they are also in basic writing courses? I offer course-based tutoring and peer review and response groups as loci for exploring that query. In the article’s second part, I narrate the sorts of ethical choices that emerged as I began to focus on the participants in this study. I describe the interactions of the participants as they worked together, and with other students, in two peer review and response sessions. The article’s third part provides a more intimate gaze into the backgrounds and experiences of all three participants, offering readers a sense of just how compelling and unexpected the participant stories proved to be, behind the scenes and beyond the classroom. The article concludes with some thoughts on how this poignant experience with two students with learning disabilities taught us all the value of what it means to struggle, to persevere, and to make the most of what “others” of all backgrounds and abilities have to offer.

In the first sentence of his History, Peter Mack states, “This is the first comprehensive history of renaissance rhetoric” (1). This sounds like a bold statement, but it is one that Mack proceeds t...

Welcome to Double HelixSeattle has its double helix pedestrian bridge.The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) outside Chicago has its gold-colored double helix staircase within the Proton Pagoda

Writing centers have long been rich sites of critical inquiry into individualized instructional styles and methods. One of the great writing center debates involves directive versus nondirective tutoring styles and methods. While many writing center scholars have discussed the intricacies of directive or interventionist versus nondirective or minimalist pedagogical methods, few have examined the rhetorical implications of this important debate in relation to more classroom-based peer collaborations. This article rhetorically analyzes the literature on directive/nondirective methods and various approaches to tutoring writing, drawing pedagogical and rhetorical connections and implications useful for all teachers of writing and rhetoric.