Summary of Different Resources of Writing Center Research

Shampa Biswas
Fall 2014

Table of Contents
ResearchingWritingCenter ................................................................................................ 3
WritingCenterPhilosophy.................................................................................................12
WritingCenterTheoryandPractice...............................................................................15
WritingCenterPedagogy....................................................................................................25
WritingCenterPractices.....................................................................................................36
WritingCenterEvaluation .................................................................................................59
WritingCenterAssessment ...............................................................................................62
WritingCenterCommunity................................................................................................64
WritingTools ..........................................................................................................................65
TeachingWriting...................................................................................................................72
GraduateWritingSupport..................................................................................................77
GraduateWritingGroup .....................................................................................................81

Researching Writing Center

Babcock, R. D., & Thonus, T. (2012). Researching the Writing Center: Towards an
Evidence-based Practice. Peter Lang. pp 143-169.
Key words: Writing Center Tutorial, Successful, Tutorial outcomes
Babcock & Thomas (2012) proposed a new direction of writing center research.
This direction may change towards an Evidence-based Practice that creates the research
base for the academic writing tutoring. Haswell mentioned that only 5% journals of the
writing center journal articles could be qualified as RAD (Replicable, Aggregable, and
data-supported) scholarship. Researchers shared their concerns about carrying out the
scientific perspectives of the writing center scholarship. Because researches on the
writing center scholarship are mostly artistic or humanistic rather than scientific. Both
humanistic and scientific perspectives could better inform the best practices in the writing
center. Empirical research can create a bridge between these two perspectives that might
advance the new field of the writing center scholarship (Babcock & Thomas 2012 p.4).
Different evidence-based practice could be in the form of: observations,
recording, micro - analysis of current tutorial sessions, analysis of reflections about
tutorials, and interview of tutors. The result of empirical research also can offer an
invaluable insight for both theory and principles practice. Haswell (1999b) use a term
work hands to recommend RAD as an evidence-based practice in the writing center.
Diverse research methodologies, especially institutional research methodologies, might
be another option to find new ways to work for diverse audiences. This can reframe the
writing center to the writing institution. The administration of the writing center can
explore local knowledge to use locally. Institutional research methodologies include

interviews, ethnographies, questionnaires, data and textual analysis, case studies, and
participant observation (Babcock & Thomas 2012 p.4).
Gillespie, P., Gillam, A., Brown, L. F., & Stay, B. (Eds.). (2002). Writing center
research: Extending the conversation. Routledge.
Key Words: Writing Center Research, Self Reflective Imquiry, Institutional Critique and
Contexual Inquiry, Inquiry into practice.
Writing Center is a site for 1) self reflective inquiry, 2) institutional critique and
contextual inquiry, and 3) inquiry into practice. Self reflective inquiry interconnects with
a call of writing center research representation, disciplinary action for advancing writing
center work and making writing center researchers. Writing center potentially is a
research site,whereas participants observation is usually used as one of the writing center
research techniques. Institutional critique and contextual inquiry, successfully explore
complexities of writing center research through further understanding about the following
dimensions: 1) local and institutional knowledge, 2) institutional discourse, 3) studentcentered assessment research, 4) grounded theory, 5) portfolio project, and 6) computer
litracies. Moreover, writing center inquiry can be integrated into practice through sharing
1) reflection, 2) tutoring stories, 3) dialectice method, and 4) curriculum based tutoring
program.
Wrting center scholars expect that writing center research site can offer a deeper
understanding about students writing processes and development; and enrich pedagogies
for facilitating writing processes. The exploration of writing center knowledge making
has three dimensions: 1) Research and scholarhip for knowledge making, 2) Political

dimensions of research method and methodologies, and 3) Related questions for current
and future dirrections of writing center inquiry.
Social scientific inquiry includes both basic and applied research. Basic research
clarifies the real situation of the writing processes and writing development in the writng
center space, whereas applied research investigates specific theories and practices of the
writing center work. Different applied researches are expereimental, descriptive,
quantitative, and qualitative. North identified three types of knowledge makers: 1)
Practitioners, 2) Scholars, 3) Researchers.
Gillam (2002) investigates conversation about writing center research, especially
emphasizing on writing center talk. According to the literature review on writing center
research, writing center was represented as a site to conduct research activities for writing
center professionals. Few essays are available on writing center research. Much attention
is essential for exploring possibilities and limitations of writing center research. Writing
center research is also limited and dependent much on the composition field for research
paradigms. Most importantly, the primary elements of writing center research: 1) writing
center as a site, 2) writing centers practice, 3) writing centers research methods, such as
empirical, ethnographic, theoretical, and practitioner inquiry.
Researchers have debated about the theory and practice of writing center in terms
of the nature of valuable knowledge for the writing center community. According to
Gillman (2002), there are few researches that talk about the quality or value assessment
of various kinds of writing center research. Furthermore, conversation, debate, and
constructive criticism are valuable for advancing writing center research. For highlighting
reflective research, rhetorical criticism is discussed as the primary interpretive method for

studying writing center. Basically rhetorical criticism requires to reflect the realities of
audiences through analysis and interpretation of thoughts or ideas from the text. The main
components of rhetorical criticism are different forms: 1) figures and tropes, 2) style, 3)
common places, 4) argumentative strategies, and 5) cultural and rhetorical contexts. In
addition, writing center inquiry can be performed clarifying unspoken assumptions,
contradictions, and unresolved dilemmas (p.5). Symptomatic method could be useful for
interpreting text in terms of what is not said as well as what is (p.5). Symptomatic
method identifies symptoms of underlying philosophy (or ideology or thoughts or ideas).
Furthermore, writing center representation and relationship among style, purpose, claims,
and warrants are valuably discussed with clusters of metaphors that are spatial, human
growth, and scientific (p.5).
Writing center scholars encouraged writing center practitioners to engage in
research for advancing writing center scholarship and research for three specific reasons:
1) Evaluate writing center work, 2) Understand and expand writing center research, and
3) Provide appropriate evidences to reflect the value and role of the writing center work
to the local institutions.
The writing center as frontier and as adolescent
Brannon and North (1980) stated that writing center has the strength to offer a
space where new discoveries and innovations could happen across the discipline. Their
assertions were based on the two seminal ideas that define composition as a discipline:
1) the student centered curriculum & 2) concern for composing as a process (p.7). The
prospect of writing center practice makes the status of writing center a frontier that offers
to recognize writers processes. Most importantly, the frontier status of writing center

interconnects different dimensions of disciplinary compositions using writing center

relationship. Here writing center relationship ties with the two central ideas of writing
center and composition studies: 1) Student-centered instruction and 2) Process-centered
instruction.
Writing center scholars, first used the frontier metaphor. Here the frontier
metaphor asserts ownership within the larger field of composition studies. This metaphor
is a common place in composition discourse and has often used to relate disciplinary
status. The frontier metaphor is used to indicate spatial growth and human growth.
Spatial growth relates to the idea of writing center ownership within a large context.
Moreover, the frontier metaphor consequently relates writing center research that
explores new ideas and methods about writing processes and writing pedagogies.
Gradually, writing center research can nurture the core ideas of student-centered
curriculum and process-centered composition.
Human growth is used as the second metaphor for suggesting possible changes
from the adolescent state to the maturity state. These can help writing center
professionals to establish academic identity of writing center. The scenario of the writing
center is considered as an adolescent (i.e., place, practice, writing center workers &
clients, personification). The maturity status indicates that writing center encourage
administrators for extending research and scholarship to reflect their valuable roles as
writing center practitioners. To change the impressions of writing center work as writing
correction places, Brannon and North suggested three ways: 1) scholarly legitimacy, 2)
professional legitimacy, and 3) local knowledge production.
Learner, N. (2002). Insider as outsider: Participant observation as writing center

research. Writing Center Research. Extending the Conversation, 53-71.

Key words: Insider, role shift, observer, evaluator, writing center research.
Neal (2002) focuses on insider status and role shift from colleague and friend to
observer and evaluator in writing center research. The author shared four questions that
were interrelated as a participant observer during studying the writing center: 1) What is
the type research ? ( Ethnographic? Qualitative? Interpretive?)
2) What are the methods of data collection? 3) How could I negotiate my role as both an
insider and an outsider with the colleagues whom I was studying?
4) How could I accommodate my ideological and principal notions of tutoring to reflect
the findings of the research to make sense of what I was observing? (p. 54).
Furthermore, Learner mentioned Eisner (1991)s suggestion to focus on the need of
investigators specific consciousness. In fact, writing center investigation requires
practicing specific consciousness for rational decision making. Here consciousness refers
to sensibility, taste, and rational judgment(p.54). The inquiry of writing center can be
formal as a dissertation or informal as a reflection on practice. Moreover, Learner relate
consciousness to reflect 1) why choices are made, 2) who have studied around those
choices, and 3) what new possibilities can make for tutor and writing center director.
Learner shared how he evaluated own tutoring practices to improve that
practice and also advance the field of writing center knowledge and practice through the
following questions: 1) Why do I act the way I do in tutoring sessions?, 2) What goals
and expectations do I bring?, and 3) How can I interpret students language to understand
more fully the goals and expectations they bring ?. In a word, tutors can self evaluate
their tutorials by utilizing above questions that provides information in writing center
tutoring sessions in terms of tutoring roles, goals, and approaches. Consequently this

practice not only improves individual tutors tutoring practices, but also enriches the field
of writing center research. The following quote from the chapter is very valuable for our
daily writing center practices, Our research on our writing centers continues this
dialogue, interrogates, and expands it. We are all participant-observers and we all have
much to discuss.(p.68).
Harris, M. (2002). Writing center administration: Making local, institutional
knowledge in our writing centers. Writing center research: Extending the conversation,
75-89.
Key words: Writing Center Administration, institutional knowledge making, knowledge
making in practices, and visibility of writing center.
Decision making process of Writing center is grounded on theories, practices,
research, and local knowledge. The local features and constraints of each writing center
are very essential to explore solutions of various problems and questions. The
institutional visibility of the writing is also possible locally and nationally through
institutional knowledge making by providing evidences of writing center work.
Neff, J. M. (2002). Capturing complexity: Using grounded theory to study writing
centers. Writing center research: extending the conversation, 135-150.
Key words: Grounded Theory, Writing Center Research, Complexities of human
interactions.
Elaborating complexities in writing center work need illustrations of multiple
level interactions. Ground theory is used to understand interaction processes and social
changes. This theory suggests to process and combine illustrations from researchers,
practitioners, and theorists; and provide evidence in writing center research.

Liggett, S., Jordan, K., & Price, S. (2011). Mapping Knowledge-Making in

Writing Center Research: A Taxonomy of Methodologies. Writing Center Journal, 31(2),
50-88.
Key Words: Writing Center Research, Research Methodologies, Knowledge
Mapping, Writing Center Community.
Liggett et al (2011) offer a theory or taxonomy of methodologies for the writing
center how the writing center community makes knowledge that would help us to reflect
ourselves as researchers. Variety of research materials from both writing center studies
and composition studies provided exemplary models of specific methodologies: 1)
Practitioner inquiry, 2) Conceptual inquiry, and 3) Empirical inquiry. The practitioner
inquiry has identified as a distinct and experimental knowledge of practitioners. It is very
problematic to determine the value and nature of practitioner inquiry. Besides, it is an
attempt to elevate the professional status of writing center work, although some prefer to
avoid the labels of practitioner and practitioner inquiry. Systematic investigation of
this inquiry employs reflexive and dialectical means to test and validate the knowledge
they create. Moreover, the practitioner inquirers reflexive stance is the most vital to the
success of the methodology.
Another central focus to the practitioner inquiry is self and self- knowledge.
Indeed, practitioner inquiry is reflexive, which is experientially based research that
examines experience and help to investigate and personal knowledge carefully. Two
methodologies are used to make knowledge in practitioners inquiry: 1) Narrative inquiry
(familiar to audience) and 2) Pragmatic inquiry (to conceptualize the interpretative work
of the practitioner inquirer)(Liggett et al., 2011).

10

The conceptual inquiry explores interpretations of the occurrence within the

writing center and beyond the broader contexts of writing programs and institutional
hierarchies. Three categories of conceptual inquiries are historical, critical and theoretical
considering different kinds of reading text (for example, students writing, writing center
documents, academic articles and books)(Liggett et al., 2011)
Primary categories of an empirical inquiry are the descriptive inquiry and the
experimental inquiry.

Importantly, the descriptive inquiry observes and analyzes

behaviors, events, and social phenomena, whereas methodologies are survey as inquiry,
text analysis (i.e., discourse analysis, genre analysis) and contextual inquiry (i.e., case
study and ethnography). First, survey is used to collect data for variety of methodologies.
Second, text analysis is used to understand the rules of syntax, usage, and mechanics that
basic writers always use when they write. Third, contextual analysis contributes to
identify and investigate the myriad variables inherent in the writing center work (Liggett
et al., 2011).

11

Writing Center Philosophy

Hobson, E. H. (1994). Writing Center practice often Counters Its Theory. So

what? In J. A Mullin and R. Wallace (Eds.), Inter-sections: Theory-Practice in the
Writing Center (pp.1-10). Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.
Key Words: Writing Center, Practice, Theory, Critical Writing center, Praxis
(performance or application of skill).
The philosophy and methodology of the writing center focuses on different ways
of making knowledge. Recent critiques of knowledge production in composition suggest
that theory / practice is itself insufficient, especially when theory leads to practice.
Writing center itself is capable of providing an informed self-critique and validating the
knowledge that results from its critical action. In the first place, theory and practice are
different types of discourse-theory is prepositional (i.e., prepare to act); lore is procedural
(i.e., technical or practical). Second, the unique circumstances of every instance of
application require a unique approximation and implementation of theory into practice.
Tutor need to continue to understand, value, and critique, recognize and advertise the
credibility of knowledge. Tutors must know both Writing Center theory and practice to
study and critique these inconsistencies. Sometimes, tutors feel guilty about being more
interested in the practice of writing center work than in its theory. Tutor need to continue
to understand, value, and critique, recognize and advertise the credibility of knowledge
(Hobson 1994).
Theory and practice of the writing center are examined through the following
theses:

12

1)

Writing center theory has problems keeping up with the writing center

practice because writing center theory is not based on the same foundations as the
practice (i.e., often called upon to justify).
2)

Beyond this one explanation, however, lies more deeply rooted problems

that reflect the writing center communitys insecurity about its commitment and
principle in the writing center.
Historically, the Writing Center theory and practice was related to the practice of error
correction in students papers. In the old curriculum, the writing lab had been expected to
fix writing problems. The process movement influenced the writing center community to
justify students writing in a new phase. The practices of the writing lab had been clear
cut, there now existed no absolute answers. Viable practices within a positivist
epistemology were no longer credible as writing had been demonstrated to be an activity
controlled not as much by concrete rules as be the context I which the communicative
event takes place, writing center had to alter the instruction. Tutorial context of the
writing center has been intensively focusing on the power of conversation between
student writers and trained writing tutors. Through this conversation process, possible
ways could be found to improve writing
Writing Center theory grew out of practice because no theory called the existence
of Writing Center. Later on, the theory drew from other disciplines because even as
isolated, decontextualized events, tutorials do not exist within the tightly defined ,
disciplinary structures of academic; rather they work within a process or within the
complex whole. Hobson (1994) mentioned Bruffees suggestion for proposing the best
alternatives for writing center practice. For instance, one-to-one instruction and group

13

tutoring produced desirable results with writers and the writing center community
enthusiastically endorsed these practices.
Practice as theory (A critical writing center praxis): According to Christina
Murphy, No single theory can dictates writing center theory, instead we can reshape
theory to fit our particular needs in the particular historically situations located needs in
which writing center practitioners find themselves. In the first place, theory and practice
are different types of discourse-theory is prepositional (i.e., prepare to act); lore is
procedural (i.e., technical or practical). Second, the unique circumstances of every
instance of application require a unique approximation and implementation of theory into
practice. In short, Tutors need to continue to understand, value, critique, recognize and
advertise the credibility of knowledge.

14

Writing Center Theory and Practice

Barnett, R. W., & Blumner, J. S. (2007). The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory
and Practice. Longman.
Key Words: Writing Center History, Theoretical Foundation of Writing Center,
Administrative and Institutional Issues of Writing Center, Theoretical and practical
perspectives of Tutoring Process, Diversity of Writing Center, Relationship between
Writing Center and Writing Across the Curriculum, Technology in the Writing Center.
Barnett & Blumner (2007) emphasizes on crucial writing center issues according
to both theoretical and practical perspectives: 1) Technology, 2) Tutoring Philosophy, 3)
Training, or administration, and 4) the forces of the writing center theory and practice.
Specific concerns are highlighted on writing center histories, theoretical foundations,
administrative and institutional issues, tutoring process with theory and practice, diversity
(i.e., multiple cultures), writing across the curriculum, and technology. The main intent of
the book is to compile leading writing center issues (argumentative and prominent) that
guide practitioners to self reflect and self assess for advancing future writing center work.
Gradually, this effort can lead them to fit within the broader educational context. Scholars
stated that there is not enough agreement regarding the question, What should be the
relationship between theory and practice?(p. ix). This specific question encourages to
explore the complex nature of the writing center work. The following questions are
presented and answered according to diverse writing center scholars: 1) How much does
theory and practice affect what we do?, 2) How much have our theories and practices
changed in the last twenty year?, 3) Is practice informed by theory?, 4) Is practice
corrupted by theory?, 5) Have we created theory/practice dichotomies? 6) Should theory

15

and practice feed each other, inspire each other?, 7) Should we consider one best theory
or should we consider multiple theory?, 8) Is what we do better than what we say we do?
. In a word, the authors inspire writing center practitioners to ask new questions and
create new knowledge in the field of writing center work.
Warnock, T. & Warnock, J. (1984). Liberatory Writing Centers: Restoring
Authority to Writers. Writing Centers: Theory and Administration. Ed. Gary A. Olson.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1984. 16-23.
Key Words: Writing Center, Writing Authority, Revision, Theory
Writing center is a resource center where students are responsible for self learning
thorough committing themselves for revision. In many writing center writing is tutored
with a key concept on meaning considering authors interest and audience prospects in a
holistic manner. The first revision relates to the instructor. Writing teacher must see
themselves as writers; they must write so that they can understand writing from the inside
out and learn to respect the variety of writing processes, attitudes, readers, and contexts.
A liberal understanding might take this variety as a sanction for relativism.
A liberatory understanding recognizes that authority derives from a personal
struggle of each author. Therefore, the image of the teacher as writer results in a revision
of the teachers relationship with students, for students in liberatory centers also become
authors of and authorities on their own texts. Writing center teachers usually sit
comfortably and alertly among their students, listening their papers being read aloud and
discussed. Being a writer, having the same relation to the writing problem as the
students as the students, this sort of teacher does not demand writing formatted according
to his or her authority, but instead works with students in the process of writing.

16

The teacher, who listens to students talk about and read papers on issues on which they
are authorities, can learn not just new information, not just new symbolic forms, but new
relationships to the problem of writing. The teacher facilitates students by listening and
reading papers on issues. Writing center teachers attitudes allow them to revise
confidently.
Writing center teachers must by ready to learn and listen so that they can be
empowered with critical consciousness. Accordingly they will understand the language,
identify their error having the power to revise the self and the world. Once students adopt
a critical consciousness toward their own writing, students may not use such
consciousness for that writing. Student may come to the writing center to learn only to be
rescued. Teachers can move them forward encouraging revision of the writing. In
addition, teachers may help students to change their attitude towards themselves as
writers and writing. A crucial part of the change is to re-introduce to students the sense of
their own authority and responsibility. Students senses of own authority in learning need
to be taken care of the teachers so that they feel confident enough about themselves.
Liberty learning requires that learners feel and belief that they understand their own
errors to revise their writing.
The center is to encourage students to value their authorship of their texts and
lives so that they evaluate their own learning processes. The new role of students in
liberatory writing centers allows them to speak their thoughts, wish and need.
Students always say that they cannot write, but they do not say that they dont know what
they are thinking. Therefore, they will be willing to listen to others draft and give their
comments. The context of a liberatory center is fundamental to the revisions of faculty

17

and student and their relationships to each other. At centers students come and go at
their own wish and they bring their own writing materials, which immediately establishes
their authority.
Students and tutors are both writers, confronting the same kinds of problems;
student and tutors are allies. They both develop critical consciousness, the capacity to
entertain seriously each others opinion, confident that other views can be accepted,
rejected, or modified. The understanding of language as symbolic action allows for
revision, because language is regarded as a performance, not a reference to an absolute
truth that cannot be revised because it originates from a source of incontestable power.
Critical consciousness is not power itself, but it is the necessary condition of power.
When language is defined as symbolic action, it becomes a playground for experimenting
with ideas, roles, and expectations. It is also an arena for action in which all things are not
possible, in which all necessities are recognized, and in which revision is defined as an
action that changes according to people, purposes, and places and writing is defined as
process, product, performance, problem-solving, and thinking.
In general writing is defined, as the ability to read a particular situation critically
and to decide what kind of symbolic action will work best, given the specific context and
motives. Liberatory centers are risk taking operations, just as liberatory learning is risky
business for individuals who allow for revision themselves. The primary materials of the
center are the students messy texts. The body of the knowledge is the student
themselves. The authors suggest that the liberatory center remain on the fringes of the
academic community, in universities or public schools, in order to maintain critical
consciousness. This does not mean lack of involvement; it means, in fact, active

18

involvement but with a critical distance to assess and evaluate in the light of a theory of
liberatory learning.
The critical stance is revolutionary and re-visionary. The power of revision comes
with the understanding of language as symbolic action. The understanding comes to
communities and to cultures, as well as to individuals, and the understanding comes, in
revised forms, many times. The function of our schools and universities is too often to
contradict such consciousness, causing students to deny the revisionary power in and of
themselves. Centers are in a unique position to restore the power, that authorial nature, to
student and stuff.
Murphy, C. (1994). The Writing Center and Social Constructionist Theory. In J.
A Mullin and R. Wallace (Eds.), Inter-sections: Theory-Practice in the Writing Center
(pp.15 - 38). Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.
Key words: Writing Center, social interaction, social assessment, collaborative learning,
collaborative writing.
The social constructionist theory has substantial influence upon writing center.
Collaborative learning and collaborative writing have been approved for processing
model of writing, in which writing is mostly considered as a highly personal process and
experience to be shaped and guided by a broader understanding of cognitive theory.
According to Lisa Ede, the creation knowledge has viewed from both writing and
thinking. It is very important to broaden the research and scholarship regarding
understanding the role of the writing centers role within collaborative learning.
The idea of assessing the philosophy of social constructionist theory is to widen
an understanding the role of writing center within the paradigm of collaboration and also

19

apply during writing tutoring. For the field of rhetoric and composition, John Petraglia
claims about social constructionism that can be represented, Knowledge is created,
maintained, and altered through an individuals interaction with and within his or her
community and that knowledge resides in consensus rather than in any transcendent or
objective relationship between a knower and that which is to be known.
Kenneth Bruffee and James Berlin form the basis of social constructionism: 1)
real entities include knowledge, beliefs, truths and selves; 2) all reality is arrived by
consensus; 3) consensus and thus knowledge is solely through discourse (rhetoric), and 4)
reality changes as consensus /knowledge change. James A. Reither (1986) has suggested
that for writing teacher, a social constructionists opinion has meant an emphasis upon
discourse community that share values, object of inquiry, research methodologies,
evidential contexts, persuasion strategies and conventions, forms and formats, and
conversational forms.
Many social constructionists in rhetoric and composition tend to see this process
as equitable and empowering. Ryan (1996) argues that the social constructionist
paradigm encourages social elitism and accommodation. Ryan is also concerned that a
pedagogical emphasis upon collaboration or social harmony encourages illusory views of
peership. While Ryan finds social constructionism problematic on a global or social level,
other critics object to the philosophy for its limited understanding of the learning
strategies of individual students.
If education is a microcosm of the power relations an oppositional politics that
exist in any society and any historical era, embracing the ideas of social constructionism
means for writing centers an endorsement of the view that writing centers are effective

20

when they advance a students mastery of social skill. Greatest challenges facing rhetoric
and composition involve the construction of a maximally inclusive and relevant theory to
help those of us teaching in writing classroom. Social constructionism is the latest in the
writing centers disciplines searches for a meta-ideology Centers represent a range of
philosophical perspectives and offer wise and beneficial advice.
Fitzgerald, S. H. (1994). Collaborative Learning and Whole Language Theory. In
J. A Mullin and R. Wallace (Eds.), Inter-sections: Theory-Practice in the Writing Center
(pp.1-10). Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.
Key Words: Collaborative Learning, Whole Language Theory, Problems in Noncollaborative conferences.
Collaborative writing conferences serve writing where all language arts (speaking,
listening, and reading) all serve in writing. Collaborative learning theory states that
writing center tutoring session offer examples of collaborative learning where tutors and
students work together on a writing to construct a meaningful write-up. The aim of
collaboration is to consult with others and in the social context of sharing ideas and
drafts, fashion their own ways of proceeding.
The whole language theory is not simply working together which produces good
writing in a writing center, but the practice such work gives the tutees in all the language
arts. In a truly collaborative tutoring session, the tutor helps student develop listening,
reading, speaking, and writing skills simultaneously. Tutors create conditions where
student writers talk and write like writers. The whole language theory asserts that
simultaneous use of language arts, reading, speaking, writing, and listening, will assist
each other to achieve communication acts.

21

In the classroom, whole language approaches (includes all language arts) are used
in teaching rather than separate reading, writing, listening, or speaking. In the writing
center, using whole theory means combining all the language products while working on
a writers product. The theory finds its support in learning process theory, which in turn
encompasses ideas of mapping and scheme theory. Pre-1980 theorists considered the
language arts as separate. This was especially true of the differences stressed between
speaking and writing. But with the acceptance of cognitive psychologys theory of
learning process theories, more of us started to practice the language arts as a continuum
rather than as separate activities.
In a writing center conference, hearing the tutor read aloud what the tutee has
written, or the tutees reading aloud what the tutee has written, or the tutees reading
aloud his or her own work, may help the tutee see where change is needed so that the
tutee is better able to understand the requirements of the writing.

Process theory

suggests that part of the process of learning may require to attach information in a fashion
similar to what composition teacher call treeing or clustering.
Reading theorists suggest that students create trees in order to understand the
organization of the reading material. Such trees relate to the concept map used in
tutorials. Reading and writing theorists emphasized on the processing of information.
Traditionally reading was considered as receiving information, while writing was
regarded as a productive one, which gives form to what is already known by the writer.

In addition, both reading and writing are found very meaningful to assimilate
ideas and thoughts in writing. For example, listeners both hear what is said and process it

22

to create their own meaning. Therefore, processing language using all language arts is
most likely beneficial for student writers. Working with others in a collaborative setting
allows the writer or tutee to process information using all language arts, and it allows the
tutor to experience this equal benefit.
Collaborative Examples Reflecting Whole Language: Three types collaborations are:
writing support groups, tutor - tutor activities, & tutor tutee conferences. Each
collaboration offers students engagement in using all language arts, although usually they
aim to work only on writing.

Collaboration is particularly evident in the second language writing groups where

students shared many similar surface-level problems in writing such as subject/verb
agreement and inappropriate choice.
Students are comfortable too exchange their ideas and their writing because they
experiences from group members. They are benefited from each other: by speaking
together, reading their papers aloud, and sharing ideas about writing project but also their
speaking, listening, and reading skills. Tutor use reading, listening, and speaks in helping
tutees achieve writing success.
Problem in Non-collaborative Conference: Writing remains virtually same in each draft
when teacher instructs students what to fix in the writing. Tutors who work with students
to change the draft, it can be assumed that writing quality will be improved.
Collaboration empowers students to practice the language arts, to process information.
Collaborative learning allows students to become more successful writers in
group tutorials, tutor-tutor conferences, or tutor-tutee conferences. Each collaborative act

23

frees the participants by helping them process the information in such a way that it is
understandable to the audience.

24

Writing Center Pedagogy

Harris, M & Silva, T. (1993). Tutoring ESL students: Issues and Options. College

Composition and Communication 44 (4): 525.

Key Words: English second language learners, writing tutors, writing pedagogy.
The writing classroom cannot provide all instructional strategies for English
Second Language Learners (ESL) that is needed to become proficient writers.
Students need a kind of individual attention from writing tutors relating to: questions,
concerns, cultural presuppositions (or assumption), writing processes, language learning
experiences, and conceptions of the value of writing in English. Typically writing center
ensures the tutorial assistance and personal help for ESL like native English language
speakers. The goal of writing tutor is to meet individual concerns of every writer who
seeks writing centers help. Tutors can be aware of the writing process questions, reader
feedback, planning conversations and so on.
New tutors who have not yet internalized the concept of tutorial sessions, they
might think initially that they are responsible to fix the writing problems in the writing
draft. As tutors learn about the pedagogy of the tutoring, they become comfortable to
choose some problems and work for the writing session, but they need suggestions for a
hierarchy and sense of prioritizing important problems.
Tutor prioritizes errors in the writing draft through searching for the well written
sentence and acknowledge the strength of the paper in the first few minutes of the tutorial
session. Tutors are encouraged to let their student know that errors are natural part of
language learning. Most readers will be interested primarily what writers have to say.

25

ESL instruction is all about understanding and accommodating cultural

difference. Our focus in the writing center is to work with the individual differences. We
should be very carful about our tendency to consider every ESL student similar. Tutors
need to work in contrastive rhetoric and recognize different writing needs of ESL.
Tutors need to learn how do to distinguish the needs of language learning from
needs of writing process. When tutors and students are agreed with the agenda on what
they are working on, tutor needs to do some assessment about a variety of things,
including what kind of skills student has or does not have. It is a very challenging task to
do that. The reason might be low level of English language proficiency rather than
writing skill. In those circumstances, tutors need to know whether the student needs help
with language or with writing process. In fact, a very low level English Proficiency may
stop a student to write a coherent prose. Tutors can directly ask students about their basic
difficulty. When the difference between language proficiency and writing ability is not
clear, it is crucial to make distinction in order to understand and address a particular ESL
writing issue.
Tutors explore differences of ESL writing process and also justify the idea
whether ESL writers compose differently. During the tutorial session with ESL students,
tutors can emphasize on three crucial concerns: 1) the composing process (to include
more work on planning (i.e., generate ideas, text structure and language); 2) focusing on
content and organization in one draft and focusing on linguistic concerns in another
subsequent draft; and 3) to separate revising (rhetoric) and editing (linguistic) for each
draft.

26

Tutors need to know the way of categorizing type of errors addressing very
different problems. They can directly work on the large principle at work. Besides, it is
very important for tutors to explore how to figure out what problems they are facing and
use effective explanation to describe the problem. Tutors may need to take a course in the
grammar of modern English or may be a short in-service seminar or self-study. Tutors
also can remember the rules of English in terms of level of usefulness although most
rules dont work all the time. If tutors know the rules, they feel more comfortable with
their role as a writing collaborator rather than grammarians.
Tutors goal should facilitate writing processes rather than talking about grammar.
It is necessary to keep in mind that non-native speakers of a language (especially ones
with lower levels of second language proficiency) simply dont have intuitions about the
language that native speakers do. It is harder for them to recognize when something
sounds good. Therefore, in lieu of these institutions, these students will have to reply
on explicit rules to a certain extent.
Tutors need to learn how to withstand the pressure to correct every error. ESL
writers often come to the writing center seeking an editor, someone who will mark and
correct their errors and help them fix the paper. When ESL students demand correcting
all grammatical errors in a paper, tutors are at a loss to explain in a meaningful ways why
this is not productive. Tutors can help students to focus on substance of the writing
because most native speakers do not penalize them for minor problems in their writing.
Another alternative way is to deal with students demand on having all errors corrected is
to explain the role of a tutor. ESL students need to know that tutors are expected to help

27

them with strategies that will make them effective and independent writers. We need to
train tutors be educators, not personal editors.
Tutors job is to produce better writers, not better writing. Offering editorial
service is not a learning experience except for the editor, of course and tutors need to
resist their impulse to help as much as ESL students need to resist their desire to have
every grammatical errors corrected.
Tutors are responsible for setting goals for every tutorial session. Both tutors and
students need to work and think together what they can accomplish during the tutorial
session. As second language learning is a slow process, tutors have to face the realities of
the time constraints they face in tutorials. It is more realistic and more useful, if tutors can
resist dealing with all problems of a particular writing draft at once and focus on one or
two salient difficulties. Working slowly will not have result in great improvement in a
particular paper, but it will facilitate real learning and writing improvement over time.
The highest priority in the writing pedagogy is collaboration and interaction with
students. A major goal of a tutor should help students to find their own errors and
solutions. Although tutorials should begin with rhetorical concerns at some point, ESL
students will want help with grammatical correctness. When tutors confront working with
grammar, problems with verb ending and tenses, prepositions, and delete articles often
are common noticeable patterns in ESL writing. With native English speakers, tutors are
often successful in helping them learn to edit for correctness by reading aloud. Some ESL
students can also learn how to use the similar techniques during revision. Some are able
to find their own mistakes and even add omitted articles.

28

But for other ESL students, this does not seen to be an effective strategy. ESL
students who cant successfully edit by ear are not proficient enough in English to have
a feel for what is correct and what isnt. It follows that those with higher levels of
proficiency will have more success with reading aloud, but even the most proficient
arent likely to display native speaker-like institutions. Therefore, some recourse to more
mechanical rule-based proofreading strategies or to outside help, such as a native speaker
reader, will probably be necessary.
Tutors can learn about the history of ESL writing instruction, relevant models of
second language acquisition, differences between basic writers and ESL writers, personal
characteristics of ESL writers, ESL writers expectations, writing behaviors, and
composing processes, contrastive rhetoric, common sentence level errors, and, and
responding to ESL writing.
The first and second language writing instruction are distinguished by addressing
in particular the variables of language and cultural background, prior education, gender,
age, and language proficiency. Reid provides an overview of different ESL composition
teaching methodologies and offers specific information on developing curricula, syllabi,
and lesson plans for basic, intermediate, and advanced ESL writing classes.
Theories of L2 writing instruction provide an overview of research in a number of
basic areas of ESL composition. Specific rhetorical concerns of L2 writers, and cultural
issues in the writing of ESL students are important concerns to understand the context of
ESL writers. ESL instructors and writing center people need to learn from each other.
They have insights, methods, research, and experiences to share with each other.

29

Writing center tutors can draw on both research and language teaching
approaches used in ESL classrooms. ESL teachers can learn from the one-to-one
pedagogies of writing center. Moreover, writing center directors can share different
writing center strategies to deal individual differences and interact various classroom
pedagogies. Writing tutors need to ask the right questions so that students find ways to
cope with writing assignments and teacher responses. Native writing tutors disagreement
with non-native differences that interfere with learning how to write in American
classrooms; such information can serve to clarify the work of ESL teachers.
Murphy, C. (1994). The Writing Center and Social Constructionist Theory. In J.
A Mullin and R. Wallace (Eds.), Inter-sections: Theory-Practice in the Writing Center
(pp.15 - 38). Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.
Key Words: Writing Center, social interaction, social assessment, collaborative
learning, collaborative writing.
The social constructionist theory has substantial influence upon writing center
practice. Both collaborative learning and collaborative writing have been approved for
processing model of writing, in which writing is mostly considered as a highly personal
process and experience to be shaped and guided by a broader understanding of cognitive
theory. According to Lisa Ede, the creation knowledge has viewed from both writing and
thinking. It is very important to broaden the research and scholarship regarding
understanding the role of the writing centers role within collaborative learning.
The idea of assessing the philosophy of social constructionist theory is to widen
an understanding the role of writing center within the paradigm of collaboration and also
apply during writing tutoring. For the field of rhetoric and composition, John Petraglia

30

claims about social constructionism that can be represented, Knowledge is created,

maintained, and altered through an individuals interaction with and within his or her
community and that knowledge resides in consensus rather than in any transcendent or
objective relationship between a knower and that which is to be known.
Kenneth Bruffee and James Berlin form the basis of social constructionism: 1)
real entities include knowledge, beliefs, truths and selves; 2) all reality is arrived by
consensus; 3) consensus and thus knowledge is solely through discourse (rhetoric), and 4)
reality changes as consensus /knowledge change. Reither (1986) has suggested that for
writing teacher, a social constructionists opinion is meaningful for discourse community
who share values, object of inquiry, research methodologies, evidential contexts,
persuasion strategies and conventions, forms and formats, and conversational forms.
Many social constructionists in rhetoric and composition tend to see this process
as equitable and empowering. Ryan (1996) argues that the social constructionist
paradigm encourages social elitism and accommodation. Ryan is also concerned that a
pedagogical emphasis upon collaboration or social harmony encourages illusory views of
peership. While Ryan finds social constructionism problematic on a global or social level,
other critics object to the philosophy for its limited understanding of the learning
strategies of individual students. Writing Centers effectively endorses the idea of social
constructionism to advance students mastery of social skill. This perspective searches for
a meta-ideology center; represents a range of philosophical perspectives; and offer wise
and beneficial advice.

31

Jackson, R. & McKinney, J. G. (2012). Beyond Tutoring: Mapping the Invisible

Landscape of Writing Center Work. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 9 (1), 1 - 11.
Key Words: Tutoring, Writing Center Work, Mapping.
Writing centers pedagogy is one of the important aspects of the writing center
work and identity. Pedagogical efforts demonstrate the commitment to the teaching
writing in multiple sites, with multiple authors, and tutoring multiple audiences. A wide
variety of teaching strategies (e.g., one to - many instruction, student workshop, faculty
workshop and community workshop, language learning conversation groups, graduate
student writing groups, faculty writing group, and others) are practiced over 1500 US
writing center. A richly - textured and realistic vision of the writing center and writing
center work should be expanded with the collaborative efforts of writing centers
professionals. Besides they can pay attention critically to such tutoring practices and
activities of the writing center and incorporate their experiences to start the goal of
revising the writing center theory, theorizing practice, identities and mission (Jackson &
McKinney, 2012).
Hughes, B. T. (1991). Writing Center Outreach: Sharing Knowledge and
Influencing Attitudes About Writing. In R. Wallace and J. Simpson (Eds). The Writing
center: new directions. New York: Garland Pub.
Key Words: Writing Center Outreach, Instructional Strategies, Writing Center Talk,
Writing centers have been constantly expanding their instructional strategies
according to the demand of student. Writing center outreach can be seen as a natural and
logical extension of writing center talk. Outreach opens opportunities for writing center's
practitioners to share experiences and knowledge (Hughes, 1991).

32

Clark, I. L. (1990). Maintaining Chaos in the Writing Center: A Critical

Perspective on Writing Center. Dogma 11.1, 81-95.
Key words: Writing center, awareness, collaborative learning, role of tutor, writing
pedagogy, problem of plagiarism, text ownership.
Writing centers have always been diverse in their pedagogies, philosophies and
physical make ups. The writing centers period of chaotic adolescence is nearly over.
Usually center directors focus common goals, objectives, and methodologies for writing
center work. Clark mentioned that writing centers will soon take on a common form in
the profession, a common form verging on dogma, and it is in response to the idea of a
common form that advocate the maintenance of chaos. The term, chaos means a
willingness to entertain multiple perspectives on critical issues. It is also an ability to
tolerate contradictions and contraries, not to become so rigid and fossilized, and ensure to
find better ways for growing and developing our perspectives.
Olson claims that writing center is no longer in the confusion of their adolescence.
Adolescence may indeed be a trouble time of confusion and chaos. Also it can be a time
of wonder and curiosity, a time of openness and question of tradition, a time when
exploration can lead to growth, discovery, and change. In addition, Olson hopes that from
those early days, writing centers will at least retain their energy, their freshness of
perspective, and their willingness to tolerate contradiction and encourage diversity.
Writing process has become prescribed and the term workshop approach has
become institutionalized and reified. Maintaining chaos, or fluidity, or flexibility,
tutors may be able to embrace in the teaching process. Good writing teaching and
tutoring are always a struggle. Elbow points out that writing teachers have obligation to

33

students and society. We have to be supportive and nurturing, although sometimes it is

tough and demanding. Writing center provides more nurturing roles and create learning
opportunities instead of evaluating the writing or grading the writing. Writing center
philosophy encourages us to work with students at their own rate so that they become
better writers. If we nurture and facilitate according to this assumption, students will be
able to recognize their own errors.
Collaborative learning or appropriating the text, are in danger of becoming
meaningless through excessive and unreflective use. The term collaborative learning
has received considerable professional attention, although we forget to ask questions to
understand the concept or meaning of the writing. A close examination of the concept,
collaborative learning reveals that true collaboration can occur only when collaborators
are part of the same discourse community. Teachers or tutors can collaborate regularly
by discussing their work with one another, assisting one another by suggesting sources,
trading drafts, rephrasing and deleting sentences, and even polishing style in one
anothers work. This joint attempt might be successful by the authors motivation to
improve the writing. It can be assumed that the author, not the collaborator, will be
ultimately responsible for the evolving text. When collaborators suggest an additional
source, correct an error, or even rephrase a sentence or throw out an idea, we dont refer
this sort of collaboration in the Writing Center.
Collaboration in the writing center is aimed at a situation in which the author is
not a full-fledged (matured/developed) member of a discourse community. In fact, the
intention is to help the author to acquire that status. To fulfill the goal, tutors are
cautioned frequently against dominating not only the text, but also the collaborative

34

discussions about the text. Numerous writing center policies have been instituted to
prevent such domination. We already know that students learn best when they can
discover methods and ideas for themselves, when they are active participants in the
learning process, not passive recipients of information. The role of tutors should direct
students to find possible ways for revising and improving writing as independent writers.
The importance of Questioning and the role of technology are addressed to
respond student's writing. Writing Centers are indeed in a position of attaining a level of
respect within the academic community, but we must be careful to gain our academic
status. We in the writing center must maintain our chaotic adolescence so that we and
students can continue to learn from each other.

35

Writing Center Practices

A Conversation Partners Program
Ursell, E. F. (2014). Supporting Intercultural Communication: Conversation
Partners in the Writing Center. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 11(2).
Key Words: A Conversation Partners Program, Writing Center, Integrated support for
Language Learners, Intercultural Communication.
Ursell (2014) aims to describe how Conversation Partners programs provide
supports, especially for English language learners. This program could serve as a
platform of introducing cultural knowledge by advancing the ability of listening and
speaking. This program offers an intensive English instruction for English language
learners that help to participate in American academic discourse communities with
cultural awareness.
New international students in USA need supports for participating in a new
language use and new academic discourse communities. The idea of intercultural
communication can be helpful for advancing their language skills (i.e., speaking,
listening, writing, and reading). Ultimately this practice could assist them to integrate the
oral language with the written language development.
The idea of a Conversation Partners program was introduced from research and
scholarship in TESOL, intercultural communication, and applied linguistics. For nonnative English Speakers (NNES), students need to learn the lexicon, cultural conventions,
and expectations to be active members of American discourse communities. Students
need to find connections and similarities among multiple discourse communities.

36

Conversation partners program is a new idea for writing center pedagogy for long
term implications. Both tutoring and conversation partners program could offer a space
for international students for language socialization (i.e., unite TESOL and writing
center pedagogy). This provides an opportunity for international students to practice
listening and speaking. This program offers not only students access to new
communities, but also establishes a social identity within the writing center.
Enculturating into a discourse community requires one to understand the negotiation of
identity. If international students wish to adjust themselves with the American Academic
Discourse Community, they need to be open to change their own identities being a
learner, a writer, and a communicator. American students play roles of conversation
partners for international students. This support offers a space for informal conversation
and one on one language instruction. This student centered support helps to learn about
intercultural communication. Conversation partners also interpret assignments or any
course materials.
Tutoring
Bell, D. C., Arnold, H., & Haddock, R. (2009). Linguistic Politeness and Peer
Tutoring. Learning Assistance Review, 14(1), 37-54.
Key words: Peer tutoring, University Writing Center, Politeness Theory,
Developing tutorial relationship.
Bell, Arnold, and Haddock (2009) offer a way through which writing center
professionals influence tutors communicative patterns in the daily writing tutorial
sessions for creating a positive learning environment. In this research, tutorial
relationships with students were analyzed in a university writing center. Transcripts of

37

recorded sessions along with observation notes were used from the six weeks writing
tutorial sessions. Discourse analysis is used to identify the significance of the politeness
in the functioning of tutorial sessions. Tutors used negative and positive politeness
strategies to switch their roles as peers and tutors. Different ways of integrating politeness
theory in tutor training are suggested: 1) Audio and Video Taping Tutoring Sessions (i.e.,
Listening tutorial recordings as a third perspective and a group could help tutors notice
and analyze effective and ineffective tutorial techniques and communication strategies),
and 2) Dialog box with specific moments of politeness in daily tutorial sessions (for
example, a sample of tutoring dialogs).
Devet, B. D. (2014). Using Metagenre and Ecocomposition to Train Writing
Center Tutors for Writing in the Disciplines. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 11(2).
Key Words: Metagenre, Ecocomposition, Writing Center Tutoring, Writing in the
Discipline.
Devet (2014) investigates the theories for training writing tutors to facilitate
students from all disciplines. This study suggests on changes tutors and clients
perspectives and changes in tutor training in a sense, so that students understand what
it means to know and to write at college, regardless of the discipline.(p. 1). Tutors lead
students to realize their roles as students and writers in the academia and in a specific
discipline by utilizing theoretical perspectives of metagenre and ecocomposition.
Writing center is a key space to facilitate diverse writing practices of
multidisciplinary writers. Writing tutors must have the ability to talk with students about
writing in all the disciplines and suggest different tips and techniques for clarifying ideas
of different writing contexts. It is very important to think how tutor training can be

38

planned to ensure the readiness of tutors for working with multidisciplinary students.
While training tutors, directors must have knowledge about the disciplinary writing
culture for making the writing center into true multidisciplinary hubs. Two training
approaches are suggested for directors to train tutors in two ways: 1) Introducing
theoretical perspectives with the idea of Metagenre and Ecocomposition (i.e., specific
ideas of composition theories) and 2) Integrating practical applications of how tutors
write in their own discipline (Devet, 2014).
Devet (2014) suggested writing center directors to integrate the genre theory for
making writing centers growing for Writing in the Disciplines (WID), during training
tutors so that: 1) Tutors analyze different types of writing from multidisciplinary
discourse, 2) Tutors learn how to ask questions about various genre so that students
become a part of the thoughts and ideas within a disciplinary writing environment, 3)
Tutors point out the concept of interrelationships of students writing to function within
disciplinary writing conventions like natures ecosystem, when students feel obligated by
a discipline, 4) Tutors change the feelings about disciplinary writings by introducing
Coopers idea about ecocomposition (i.e., writers shape the discipline and discipline
shape them), 5) Tutors learn processes and post process approaches to composition, 6)
Tutors transfer and learn best about tutoring writing (i.e., demonstrate the ways of
adjusting and adopting to the disciplinary writing requirements), when they are familiar
with a conceptual framework (i.e., offered by the theories of metagenre and
ecocomposition)
Bailey, S. K. (2012). Tutor handbooks: Heuristic Texts For Negotiating
Difference in a Globalized World. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal. 9(2), 1-8.

39

Key Words: Tutor Handbook, Heuristic Texts, Negotiation.

Tutors handbooks are powerful heuristic texts for undergraduate tutors, the
frontline troops of writing center work. For this reason there are significant ethical
responsibilities inherent to designing generation 3.0 handbooks. First among these
responsibilities is the obligation to design handbooks that foster writing center
communities of practice where all tutors (no matters what their cultural, linguistic and
national background) can have a say in shaping the theory and practice of those
communities (Bailey, 2012).
Corbett, S. J. (2013). Negotiating Pedagogical Authority: The Rhetoric of Writing
Center Tutoring Styles and Methods. Rhetoric Review, 32(1), 81-98.
Key Words: Writing Center, Critical Inquiry, Directive and nondirective tutoring style
and method, pedagogical and rhetorical connections and implications, Teachers of
Writing and rhetoric.
The main goal of the research paper is to examine discussions of the directive or
nondirective instructional continuum and make pedagogical and rhetorical connections
for peer collaborations in writing classrooms. Literature on directive or nondirective
methods and diverse approaches of writing tutoring was analyzed rhetorically in this
study. Many experiential tasks or hands on approach of tutoring are suggested for
managing instructional and communicative rhetorical situations. The major discussion
points in this paper are 1) The directive/nondirective instructional continuum, 2) Power,
authority, and tutoring on the edge of expertise, 3) Negotiating directive/nondirective
tutoring, and 4) Renegotiating intentions.

40

Corbett (2013) emphasizes that the writing center is a rich space of critical inquiry
for an individualized and instructional style and method that have been offering care for
the individual learner. Corbett (2013) also talks about the overlap in theory and practice
between curriculum and course-based tutoring (CBT) and emphasizes tutors and tutor
coaches awareness of the rhetorical complexity (i.e., both interpersonal and intertexual)
in any tutorial situations or classrooms. The shift from the CBT theory and practice to the
writing center theory and practice expands the areas of rhetorical investigation and
reconsideration. The idea of the writing center as a physical space is moving towards the
space of theoretical and practical perspectives on the writing center. In addition, the CBT
theory provides a rhetorical space for tutors where they need to learn how to reevaluate
the value of the classical rhetorical idea of modeling and imitation in the service of
invention, arrangement, style, and delivery (p. 95) during their tutorial sessions. This
reevaluation process complements a tutors instructional repertoire (p. 95) becoming a
co-inquisitive students in the rhetorical game of learning to write, communicate,
collaborate (p.95). Moreover, the CBT theory suggests a practice for a continuum of
collaborative and empowering instructional choices that enrich interpersonal and
intertexual collegiality and agency building (p.95).
Pistone, R. A. (2010). Writing center tutors have the luxury to focus on individual
student care giving as opposed to formal classroom settings that are less care centered.
English Language Teaching, 3(2), P10.
Key Words: A Caring Tutoring Approach, Individual Care Giving, Cozy Writing Center,
Formal Classroom Setting.

41

The main goal of the research is to emphasize on individual care giving by

integrating a caring tutoring approach during peer tutorial session with undergraduate
and graduate students. Observation method was used to understand the peer tutoring
sessions (six males and seven females). The finding suggested that other tutorial sessions
were less cared. Students were found to be highly frustrated about their writings. The
research also proposed that other tutoring approaches to students are less care centered
and less nurturing that focuses on students grade.
The author defines that a Care Tutoring Approach is a new way of tutoring peers
by integrating the idea of the care giving during peer tutoring sessions. This approach
could help tutor to manage students writing anxiety and emotional problems (for
example, when student cries during the tutorial sessions). Tutor needs to deal the
situations in caring ways to develop the tutor and students interpersonal relationship.
The way of creating a caring environment could provide a new dimension to the tutoring
session. The successful implementation of the care tutoring approach could raise the selfesteem levels of students and maintain close tutor-tutee interpersonal relationship.
Park, I. (2014). Stepwise advice negotiation in writing center peer tutoring.
Language and Education, 28(4), 1-21. DOI:10.1080/09500782.2013.873805.
Key Words: Writing Center, Tutoring, Peer Interaction, conversation analysis, advice
negotiation, advice resistance.
The main aim of the research is to determine the sequence of the advice
negotiations during peer tutoring in an undergraduate writing center. The major focus of
the research was on the advice negotiation situations in which students argue with tutors
suggestions initially. The specific objectives of the research were twofold: 1) to

42

investigate the detailed instructional practices of advice resistance and its management,
and 2) to explore the nature of peer interactions within the context of tutoring. Data was
collected through the conversation analytic method that identifies interactional properties
of instruction to enrich understanding of pedagogical practices.
Literature on advice acceptance and resistance is synthesized and also the
literature on writing centers and peer tutoring are reviewed. Videotaped tutoring
interactions were recorded for 7 hours with 6 tutors and 11 tutees. Stepwise advice in
writing center peer tutoring could offer a site: 1) for knowledge development, 2) for
negotiating epistemic rights, and 3) for interactional practice for both students and tutors.
Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2014). Instruction, Cognitive Scaffolding, and
Motivational Scaffolding in Writing Center Tutoring. Composition Studies, 42(1), 54-78.
Key Words: Writing Center Tutoring, Instruction, Cognitive Scaffolding, Motivational
Scaffolding.
Mackiewicz & Thomson (2014) offer three tutorial approaches for guiding the
writing center tutor training as educationally effective for other disciplines: 1) Instruction,
2) Cognitive Scaffolding, and 3) Motivational Scaffolding. About 10 highest-rated
successful writing tutorial sessions were randomly selected from the existing corpus of 51
writing conferences and quantitatively analyzed to identify the writing tutoring
approaches of experienced writing center tutors. An interdisciplinary analytical
framework was designed and explained in this article that could help future writing center
researchers and practitioners for advancing the level of the institutional research to the
national and international writing center research level.

43

First, Instruction (p. 66) is one of the tutoring techniques, which offer ways of
achieving students writing goal. Tutor can use this techniques in three ways: 1) Telling
by explaining ideas, 2) Suggesting by providing examples, and 3) Advising by offering
potential changes (i.e., carefully applying negative polite strategies by using modal verbs,
could, may be, a little bit) (Mackiewicz & Thomson, 2014 p.66).
Second, cognitive Scaffolding is another tutorial strategies for creating a scope for
students to share ideas about the written piece and extend the conversation for clarifying
confusing ideas and integrating relevant ideas into writing. Tutor can integrate the
cognitive scaffolding in eight ways: 1) Pumping questions (i.e., Asking information
seeking questions and known information questions) to encourage students thinking and
help to respond and reflect, 2) Reading aloud for helping them to notice the missing ideas
and grammatical information, and providing a revision tool, 3) Responding as a reader by
informing their understanding, 4) Referring to a previous topic by relating similar
revision strategies to recognize same types of errors, problems, or practices, 5) Forcing a
choice by offering alternative suggestions so that students have the opportunities to
choose by themselves, 6) Prompting (i.e., make them write), 7) Hinting, and 8)
demonstrating by reminding about the deadline, sharing tips, and encouraging to return to
the writing center (Mackiewicz & Thomson, 2014 p.68).
Third, Motivational Scaffolding influences on students learning through
increasing students interest and encouragement, self efficacy, and self regulation.
The following five tutoring strategies can be utilized during the writing tutoring sessions:
1) Showing Concerns about students thought about the tutorial session. (Does that make
sense to you, is this talk helping you?), 2) Praising by sharing the strength of the writing

44

(That sounds very clear and meaningful to me), 3) Reinforcing Ownership and Control by
letting them decide about their own writing. (You are the author of the writing. You
could think and rethink what writing expressions sound more meaningful to communicate
your own ideas), 4) Being Optimistic or using humor by building self confidence and
reducing their frustrations and anxiety towards writing (You can make your words talk
for your readers, Can you?), and 5) Showing empathy or sympathy by saying It takes
time to conceptualize about research ideas and it is very difficult to transfer your
understanding into writing (Mackiewicz & Thomson, 2014 p. 70).
Wilson Schafer, M. (2013). A Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Writing Center
Tutoring 1983-2006. Composition Studies, 41(2), 122-125.
Key Words: A review, Writing Center Tutoring, Tutorial conversation, Directive and
non-directive tutoring.
Multiple qualitative studies over a 20-year develop a theory are synthesized to inform
and advance tutorial practices in writing center. Tutorial conversation and directive and
nondirective tutoring are one of the common issues in the writing center development.
The aim of this meta-research project was planned to propose a complete model by
exploring a theory that would be based on the data of the real tutorial sessions (i.e., what
is really happening in the writing tutorial sessions) rather than in abstraction (p.122).
After synthesizing the data, the author argues that writing center must reconsider their
own expressions about 1) Collaboration, 2) Success, and 3) Directive and Indirect
Tutoring.
The main topics of the synthesized book provide the following tutorial guides for the
writing center tutoring sessions:

45

1) Writing Center tutoring is influenced by personal characteristics (i.e., credibility,

attractiveness, and power of interlocutor) of tutors. Particularly, power of
interlocutors relates with knowledge, experience, race, sex, age, native language,
ability, cultural identity, preparation of positive or negative attitudes, writing
skills, and appearance.
2) Writing center tutorials relate to the external influences of the academic discourse
communities (Directors, university, academic discourse community, subject, the
course).
3) Writing tutoring relationship depends on communication approaches of tutors.
Usually tutors uses nonverbal cues thorough listening, questioning, praise,
negotiating, laughter, and connectedness.
4) Writing tutors conscious roles are crucial in writing tutoring sessions in term of
the valuable criteria: 1) (Non-) Directive, 2) (Non-) Confrontational, 3) Taking
Charge, 4) Active/Passive, 5) (Non)-Authoritarian, 6) Gendered Approach, 7)
Power, 8) Resistance, 9) Teacher/Peer, and 10) (In) sincerity.
5) Writing tutors must be able to manage emotional situations in writing tutorial
sessions. Here the ideas of the emotion are frustration, fear, guilt, confusion, and
comfort of writer during the tutorial conversation.
6) Writing tutors temperaments are essential for the best practices of the writing
tutoring sessions. Temperaments connect to tutors sensitivity, credibility, and
empathy for assisting writers.
7) The outcome of the writing tutoring session is connected to session focus,
authority, material outcomes, and relationship.

46

The authors propose writing centers, tutors, and teachers to think about the
definition of success in writing tutoring sessions. The expectations of the writing
tutoring session must be lean towards a negotiation of participants to reach to the
tutoring goal wither detriment or success.
Van Horne, S. (2012). Situation Definition and the Online Synchronous Writing
Conference. Computers and Composition, (2), 93-103.
Key Words: Tutoring, Writing, Online Synchronous Writing Conferences, Situation
definition, Lev Vygotskys (1978) Zone of Proximal Development.
The research paper highlighted on advancing interaction approaches between
students and tutors in online synchronous writing conferences through using the concept
of the Zone of Proximal Development from the Vygotskys theory. During the tutorial
sessions, both tutor and student engage in conversation about writing processes.
Consequently, writers can develop better writing processes and find a better way of
composing their writing instead of writing products.
Writing center professionals realized that many students are not comfortable or
familiar working in online environments. For this reason, they are highlighting multiple
modes of communication to meet diverse students need. In addition, Writing centers are
also open to provide both online asynchronous environments (through email tutoring) and
online synchronous environments.
Lo, H. Y., Liu, G. Z., & Wang, T. I. (2014). Learning how to write effectively for
academic journals: A case study investigating the design and development of a genrebased writing tutorial system. Computers & Education 78, 250-267. DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.007.

47

Key Words: Intelligent Tutoring Systems, A genre-based writing tutoring, Effective

writing for academic journals.
Lo, Liu, & Wang (2014) offers an intelligent tutoring system for writing academic
journals by designing an e-learning environment (i.e., EJP-Write) and suggesting a genrebased writing instruction. The online learning platform, EJP-Write was developed a
Chinese-interfaced and a self directed writing system. EJP- Write is an online writing
system that is still in the trial state.
The main features of the EJP-Write are described in four ways:
1)

References for academic writing can be collected, selected, and sorted through

different reference tools: Readcube, EndNote, and Zotero.

2)

Plagiarism issues in academic writing can be prevented through plagiarism

checking tools: Criterion, Dwrite, Turnitin, QBook, Write Check.

3)

Different collocation checkers can be used to check collocation issues in academic

writing, such as COCA (The Corpus of Contemporary American English: corpus,

byu.edu/coca), NTNU Web Concordancer, Linggle (Linggle.com, 2014), and VLC Web
Concordancer. First, COCA is the largest corpus of American English with many genre
where users can search words, phrases, synonyms, and phrases. Second, NTNU Web
Concordancer is built in with Chinese and English instructions. Third, Linggle assists
users to notice the most frequent collocations using a key word with different forms (i.e.,
noun, adjective, verb, and preposition). Fourth, VLC Web Concordancer helps users to
find synonyms.
4)

The idea of the tutoring relates to language pedagogy, writing practice,

technology, and academic journal writing.

48

The main concepts of a genre-based writing instruction are linguistic features,

disciplinary variations, interdepartmental collaboration, writing instruction, move
structures, rhetorical features, and explicit teaching. The effect of the EJP-Write was
examined on the perceived usefulness (i.e. Content effectiveness), perceived usability
(i.e., functions of a specific features and interfaces) and attitude (i.e., positive or negative)
of users through collecting qualitative and quantitative data. Particularly, the subsequent
instructions and examples are designed to ensure perceived usefulness of EJP-Write: 1)
Genre and Move structures for teaching genre that could lead better writing practices and
fulfill different users needs along with the lexical-semantic support, 2) Verb tenses and
APA citation format, 3) Phrase templates with examples for providing specific
guidelines, 4) Paragraph templates with examples for giving clear examples, and 5)
Collocations. To provide the perceived usability of EJP-Write, the specific functions of
the EJP-Write system are planned in four ways: 1) Developing outlines, 2) Writing and
Editing, 3) Collecting references and note taking, and 4) Five Functions in the tools.
Future research is suggested on comparing different reference citation software. In-depth
understanding about collecting references and citing resources could advance both
research writing productivity and reduce plagiarism issues in academic writing.

Gillespie, P., & Lerner, N. (2008). The Longman guide to peer tutoring. AddisonWesley Longman.
Key words: Peer-group tutoring, Tutor and Tutoring, Writing Centers.
Gillespie & Lerner (2008) guide tutors for being strategic tutors (p.6) in diverse
tutorial situations and encourage asking questions. Different chapters of this book focus

49

on thirteen focuses: 1) Why we tutor, 2) Writing processes, 3) Tutoring processes, 4)

What tutors bring to tutoring through self examination, 5) Instruction in observing, 6)
Practicing with essays, 7) First tutoring experiences, 8) Reading in tutoring, 9) Working
with non- native English Speakers, 10) Conducting writing center research, 11)
Understand foundations of writing center history, 12) Considering special requirements
of tutoring in Writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC), 13) Guide to anticipate common
scenario and offer potential challenges.
Tutors need to learn about writing tutoring, theoretical and practical background,
and specific issues of writing center work for conducting a successful tutoring. The idea
why we tutor presents different tutorial stories and experiences from the fourth grade to
the college level education. Tutoring stories are compared according to the contrasting
concepts around tutoring writing, seem to be in opposition - tutor/editor, novice/expert,
process/product, control/flexibility, tutor/teacher. These contrasts frame many of the
minute-minute decisions we make as tutors (p.6). The common idea from all tutoring
stories and experiences is writing tutoring. Writing tutoring is a technique to facilitate
student become a better writer. Experienced tutors mostly act considering writers needs,
and context of tutoring sessions. Few of them shared how tutoring strategies had been
changing from the fourth grade to the college level education. Moreover, the role of
tutors must not to solve every problem in assignment. Tutors need to aware of the idea,
tutoring is more than proofreading (p.2), and careful about the tasks, Dont do their
work and what not to do (p.2). When someone highlights writing problems in red, edit,
and rewrite; that is highly ineffective tutoring.
Tutors need to consider both the role of writing centers and the responsibilities as

50

writing center tutors. They also act as representatives of writing center and inform writers
how writing centers help students by: 1) clarifying requirements from the assignments, 2)
listing ideas into writing, 3) drafting the structure of presenting ideas, and 4) facilitating
revision, first focusing on the higher order concerns, and last editing writing by
themselves. These practices guide writers learn how to learn (p.7).
Writers who perceive tutor as proofreader or cleaner of text , that challenge
writing center tutorial sessions. Also writers who dont have experience to apply writing
strategies, they are not interested in collaborative ways of developing writing. In this
case, tutors have an opportunity not only to increase a writers strategic repertoire, but to
stress the role the writing center (p.7). Here it is crucial to add note from Murriel Hurris
about the basis of the modern writing center, all writers need writing tutors (p.7).
Abascal-Hildebrand, M. (1994). Tutor and Student Relations: Applying
Gadamers Notions of Translation. In J. A Mullin and R. Wallace (Eds.), Inter-sections:
Theory-Practice in the Writing Center (pp.19-24). Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.
Key Words: Tutor and student relations, Gadamers Notions of Translation,
reflective writing tutoring, praxis.
Reflective writing tutoring is not a simple activity to conduct. Gadamer proposes
that the kind of understanding needs the skill for the interpretation and translation. This
kind of reflective tutoring arises from a parts-to-whole, or hermeneutic, quality available
in translative tutoring. A philosophical analysis of this translation illuminates the ethical
dimension inherent in the human relationships and make up tutoring. This philosophical
awareness nurtures both students and tutors. Gadamer has unified philosophy and
hermeneutics into a philosophical hermeneutics that expands the ethical dimension of

51

translation. This language philosophy addresses not only the translation of speech, but
also the translation of written language. Therefore, this work explains the conscious way
of using language. Reflective tutors interpret and translate more consciously; however
conscious translation can be settled ahead of time between tutors and students.
Translation is something that happens to an interpreter in the process of using
reflective judgment to simultaneously interpret and translate what he or she understands.
Reflective thinking by translative tutors facilitates students and tutors both toward
making judgments about themselves, think and act differently than before, and develop
the potential to write differently. Reflective and translative tutors are not only reproducer
of linguistic codes, they are also interpreters for students writing. When tutors are
reflective concerning their potential as translators, they can create more meaningful
translations. They can also encourage students to think of writing as means for fusing
new horizons of understanding themselves as students and about the ideas they find in the
disciplines they study.
Allen, N. J. (1986). Who Owns the Truth in the Writing Lab? 6.2 pp.3-11.
Key Words: Role of tutors, Ownership, truth, writing lab
The role of tutors must follow based on pragmatics, whatever works well for both
tutors and students feel reasonably satisfied. The role of tutors is not only providing
satisfactory and productive experiences for the writers, but also reflecting fundamental
theoretical differences in our tutorial goals and viewpoint towards writing itself. For
instance, when a student comes to the writing lab for help on a problematic paper, tutors
have the power to make choices about how to approach that paper, and these choices
reflect our stance on the issue of the truth in the writing process.

52

By the truth, the author asserts about the truth of the writing itself instead of
writing conventions. The truth is the insight, feelings, or idea that the writer wishes to
convey in writing. As tutors, we must determine our role and attitude toward the truth in
writing. Tutors might operate different roles in a tutorial as an authority and an inquirer,
those responsibilities relate to a theoretical position on the truth.
Tutors in a writing lab are somehow always authorities as they are knowledgeable
about writing problems. One of the standard roles of writing tutors is the authoritarian.
Besides, they should have some authority or expertise concerning writing problems,
although tutors dont need to spend time making an image of authority. The truth of the
paper belongs to the tutor during the tutorial session. The tutor must figure out the truth
of the writing (How this writing paper fulfills all requirements to achieve the writing
goal). In this way, tutors recognize their appropriate efforts helping students to
understand the truth of the writing.
The inquirer is another role model for tutors. This responsibility is a bit different
than the authoritarian role. The inquirer manages to look at the writing problems
differently. In the tutorial, tutor may read through the students draft, notice missing
thesis, the undeveloped paragraph, and available partial evidence. The tutors technique is
different here. The tutor believes that student has an idea about the truth of own writing,
but information from their stored memory still has not precisely articulated in the written
document.
Tutors play the role of the inquirer asking inquisitive questions to facilitate their
thought about the underdeveloped paragraphs. Accordingly, they will be able to
communicate the partially formed thesis. While both student and tutor discuss key points

53

or describe one of the examples, the student may remember important details that he had
omitted or explored a different thought. This student shows gratefulness for an improved
document. Later on, the student might acquire more confidence and satisfaction in
personal writing. It is important to note that the student create the truth into words. On the
other hand, the tutor is the one who determines the truth that would show them the way of
recognition and articulation.
The questioner or the tutor determines the Truth that leads the students either by
explicit directions or by guiding questions. Tutors are always sensible to the students
intention, but tutors still run the very real risk of partial or mistaken interpretation. As
long as the tutor is in control of the Truth for a paper, this Truth may not be what the
student intended.
A writing lab tutor plays the role of an explorer of truth and dialogue in writing
processes. Verbal interaction can generate new ideas and better thinking through the
words. In dialogue the participants can bring up points or questions, which must be
incorporated into the whole and thereby, guide to truer knowledge. Tutors can be an
explorer whenever it is possible. Both tutors and students explore the thoughts and
comment one anothers paper. When the truth emerges through their interaction, it is a
richer truth than either could have produced alone. Thus, tutoring creates scope to explore
ideas and thoughts in a collaborative way toward the writing process with positive
attitude and excitement.
Each of these three roles has its value in a writing tutorial. The skilled tutor uses
different tutoring approaches according to different students needs or even to use
different times during one on one tutorial. At the end of the tutorial, the tutor can sum up

54

accomplishments or by asking the students to do so. A tutor can use both roles in control
of the truth. Also we can find the students truth in writing as an explorer, and we should
seek that whenever we can.
Tutors awareness of the theoretical implications of tutoring roles will make us
better able to choose the best approach for each student or problem. Consequently, tutors
will be able to make informed decision during the tutorial session. Although the role of
an explorer is challenging, it is much easier and certainly more secure to deal with a firm
and clear goal. Collaborative learning might be the best approach during the tutorial
where tutor and student can learn from each other. This process is also enriching and
rewarding for both.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledgebuilding and knowledge-telling in peer tutors explanations and questions. Review of
Educational Research, 77(4), 534-574.
Key Words: Tutor learning, Knowledge-building, Knowledge-telling, Knowledgemaking, Peer Tutoring
Peer tutor learns through explaining and questioning activities during the tutoring
session either knowledge- building (i.e., monitoring of comprehension and knowledge)
and knowledge-telling (i.e., summarization with little monitoring and elaboration) (P.
535). Tutor learning was observed across different tutoring formats, with students of
diverse background, and different subject matter domains to understand the tutor learning
effects, and processes of tutor learning. Tutoring activities may provide many
opportunities for tutors to engage in reflexive-knowledge building. Also, question has
strong potential for tutors learning, but tutor and student questions are mostly knowledge-

55

telling rather than knowledge-building. Future research might be focused on the

utilization of the tutoring process data to understand tutors learning and how tutors can
develop new training methods (Roscoe & Chi, 2007).
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring.
American educational research journal, 31(1), 104-137.
Key Words: Tutoring, question asking, academic achievement.
Researchers believe that questions asking and answering are central components
for students self- understanding about self- knowledge deficits. Students academic
achievement, self- regulated learning, questions asking skills. Questions are classified by
a degree of specifications, content, and question-generation mechanism to analyze the
quality. Students academic achievement is positively correlated with the quality of the
questions. Appropriate training is suggested for students to improve their questions
asking skills.
Kopp, K. J., Britt, M. A., Millis, K., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Improving the
efficiency of dialogue in tutoring. Learning and Instruction 22.5, 320-330.
Key Words: Dialogue based intelligent tutoring system, efficiency, learning
environment, knowledge construction.
Effective dialogue in Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) is a dynamic and engaging
learning environment for deeper levels of knowledge construction. Efficiency of learning
with less time, different dialogue system and efficiency score are the main research focus.
Efficiency scores are measured under four dialogue systems: full dialogue, mixed
dialogue, limited dialogue and no dialogue. The experiment 1 is done with 138 native
English speaking undergraduate and the experiment 2 is completed through 180 native
56

English speaking. The current research shows that ITS with natural dialogue can be made
to be more efficient. Dialogue based intelligent tutoring system could be designed to
maximize learning and minimize the cost of time-on- task. The goal of this study is to
investigate the efficient use of natural language during a computerized tutoring session.
Future research may be done on the use of ITS in the classroom (Kopp, 2012).
Thompson, I. (2009). Scaffolding in the Writing Center A Microanalysis of an
Experienced Tutors Verbal and Nonverbal Tutoring Strategies. Written Communication,
26(4), 417-453.
Key words: Verbal and non-verbal tutoring strategies, scaffolding, micro-analysis,
writing center.
Three types of verbal strategies (i.e., direct instruction, cognitive scaffolding, and
motivational scaffolding) are identified and described. Also, different aspects of nonverbal strategies are described and analyzed. Students are supported in making correct
and useful responses. Also, their feedbacks are necessary to set the agenda during the
conferences. Micro-analysis of direct instruction is 28-minute writing center conference.
Scaffolding should be considered for closer attention in university writing centers. Future
research might be expanded from a single writing center conference to a large writing
center conference with experienced tutors (Thomson, 2009).
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent
tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221.

57

Key Words: Human tutoring and Intelligent tutoring system, effectiveness, student
learning.
Human tutoring refers to an adult, subject-matter expert working with single
student. This research compares between the impact of human and computer tutors on
students learning. The research focuses on: detailed dialogue system, individualized task
selection, sophisticated tutorial strategies, learner control of dialogue, broader domain
knowledge, motivation, feedback, scaffolding, the ICAP (Interactive, constructive, active,
and passive) framework, the interaction granularity hypothesis. Three illustrative studies
are done to test the interaction granularity hypothesis by comparing the five types of
instruction: human tutoring, sub-step tutoring, step-based tutoring, answer-based tutoring,
and no tutoring. The research shows that ITS is effective as human tutoring system.
Although, ITS cant replace a whole classroom experience, but ITS may replace
homework, seatwork and other activities (VanLehn, 2011).

58

Writing Center Evaluation

Bell, J. H. (2000). When Hard Questions Are Asked: Evaluating Writing Centers,

The Writing Center Journal, 21(1), 8-28.

Key Words: Hard Questions, Writing Center Evaluation, Self Evaluation
Bell (2000) emphasized that writing centers must pay attention toward the
meaningful self evaluation processes. The specific focuses of the article are: 1) why
writing centers evaluate themselves, 2) what are the four aspects of evaluations with clear
definitions: systematic, interpretation, judgment, and action. Usually writing center
emphasizes two types of evaluation that are summative and formative. Summative
evaluation applies to the context when writing center practitioners communicate with
supervisors, consumers, and funders. On the other hand, formative evaluation aims to
improve the program, when the evaluation is local.
In addition, six types of evaluation design are described and suggested by
evaluation experts to develop diverse small scale evaluation schemes for advanced
writing center practices: 1) Consumer-oriented (i.e. Concentrates on writing center users
as consumers by estimating whether they have reached to the expected goal (i.e.,
objective-oriented) or they have managed to collect appropriate resources for better
decision making processes (i.e., management-oriented)); 2) Adversary-oriented (i.e.,
Occurs, if specific problems arise in writing center); 3) Management-oriented (i.e.,
collects information for decision makers); 4) Naturalistic and participant-oriented (i.e.,
Understands multiple scenarios, perceptions of every stakeholders in evaluation; and also
integrate the suitable methodology for communicating contextualized information); 5)

59

Expert-oriented (i.e., Judge the value of a program); and 6) Objective-oriented (i.e.,

Presents the level where objectives have been achieved).
Schendel, E. & Macauley, W. J. (2012). Building writing center assessments that
matter. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press.
Key Words: Writing Center Assessment, scholarship development, institution mission
statement,
The authors present that both practical and theoretical approaches are important to
develop assessments and meet particular needs. Specific focuses are scholarship
development, value of assessable outcome, institutional mission statement, learn from
others, method of data collection, and ways to translate assessment reports. First,
development of scholarship (p. 1) aims to explore variety of contexts, connections, and
methods to construct writing center assessment. Second, assessable outcome (p. 25) can
become valuable after considering the following questions: 1) What are our values?, 2)
What is your assessment goal?, and 3) What is your local context?. These create clear and
assessable outcomes to serve goals or targets that will become the basis of an assessment
plan and ensure assessment processes and inquiry.
Third, institutional mission (p. 57) demonstrates collective perspectives in the
development plans, after integrating writing center assessment with the institutional
mission statement. Ultimately, this also plays specific roles of institution to achieve their
missions. Fourth, learn from others (p. 82) can be beneficial for writing practitioners to:
1) Learn rich resources from on campus professional organization, 2) Connect important
educational issues in assessment plan, and 3) Disseminate writing center assessment to
larger communities for initiating conversation about writing instruction, student support,

60

and writing center practices. Fifth, integrating assessment from other writing centers
work (p.106) creates opportunities for new knowledge by diverse fields. Moreover,
writing centers might consider both qualitative and quantitative data equally to inform
and communicate writing center work.
Sixth, writing and practicing (p. 132) are possible by listing every tasks and
responsibilities in every day writing center work. Seventh, translating assessment into
reflection (p.162) encourages to find ways of translating assessment reports. Eight, coda
(p.179) might be essential for writing center assessment. In the end, annotated
bibliography for writing center assessment (p.179) can be suggested to utilize resources
on writing center assessments, specially the connection of the research papers with the
writing center assessment theory or methodologies and the invisible line between writing
center research and assessment. In word, writing practitioners need to recognize all good
assessment is also good research (p.179).

61

Writing Center Assessment

Allan, E. G., & Driscoll, D. L. (2014). The three-fold benefit of reflective writing:

Improving program assessment, student learning, and faculty professional development.

Assessing Writing, 21, 37-55.
Key Words: Reflective Writing, Three-fold benefit, Program assessment, student
learning, professional development.
A reflection model is suggested as a potential way of advancing learning
achievement, promote students learning outcome, and meet professional development
needs. This model could provide three valuable advantages for the first year writing
course assessment through: 1) Promoting meta-cognition (i.e., a type of self-awareness or
self-assessment), 2) Transferring learning concepts into the real life situation, and 3)
Advancing teaching instruction.
Students reflection could create a bridge between their reflective thinking and
diverse practices into any new situations. Reflection can be a powerful educational
transformation tool for students in the teaching and learning practices of general
education and disciplinary practices that help to reflect their insights about practicing
learning. This practice provides an opportunity to interrelate information or ideas from
background, current, and future contexts. This ability also integrates ideas from their
immediate learning into multiple leaning contexts. Learning into practice requires one to
utilize and connect prior knowledge for reflecting on the current learning settings.
Allan and Driscoll (2014) used a detect-elect-connect model to describe how
students can practice to recognize relevant prior knowledge, interrelate ideas, and
afterward, find a new way for dealing a new situation. The research results suggests that

62

reflective teaching could be introduced and throughout the curriculum. Workshops can be
organized for emphasizing on metacognition and teaching reflection activities.
Tutors reflection about the daily writing tutorial sessions can provide an in-depth
understanding of the current writing tutorial sessions in the undergraduate writing center.
Later on, this reflection database could be used for the writing center research and
pedagogy advancement both locally and institutionally.

63

Writing Center Community

Santos, M. C., & Leahy, M. H. (2014). Postpedagogy and Web Writing.

Computers and Composition, 32, 84-95.

Key Words: Writing pedagogy, Postpedagogy, Web writing, Blogging, Kairos,
Invention writing community.
Santos and Leahy (2014) shared their experiences of integrating the idea of
Postpedagogy to the web writing for the first year students over the past six years. The
idea of web writing is used as means of participating in a writing community with a
group of similar writing interests, motivations, and involvements in a variety of online
writing practices (i.e., blogging, discussion forums, social networks like facebook and
twitter). In this research, Kairos is defined as an ancient rhetorical concept of knowing
the most appropriate techniques in a given situation. The idea of postpedagogy
recommends a new design in which good writing is a matter of inventing new thoughts
rather than reproducing ideas for creating a possible environment along with both
productive and instructional perspectives. This concept of postpedagogy to the web
writing does not provide a recipe for producing good writing, but offer a blue print for a
kitchen in which good writing can happen (p. 87).

64

Writing Tools

Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping:

what are the differences and do they matter? Higher education, 62(3), 279-301.
Key Words: Advantages, Disadvantages, Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping,
Computer-aided Argument Mapping, Critical Thinking, Argument, Inference Making,
Knowledge Mapping.
Academician and teachers have been started to realize the importance of using
visual diagram and structured diagram for mapping and structuring information through
using software tools. The study explores a list of software mapping tools to find a simple
way of communicating complex topics through enhancing the comprehension, clarity,
and visual presentation of the information, instead of words. According to the empirical
evidence from the cognitive science, the integration of mapping or visual displays for
educational purposes can advance students learning processes by improvising different
modalities. Particularly, Davies (2011) emphasized on the advantages and disadvantages
of three mapping tools: 1) Concept Mapping, 2) Mind Mapping, and 3) Argument
mapping.
The main aim of using mapping tools is similar (i.e., displays a complex set of
relationships in a visual format), but the application of the three tools is very different
from each other. Differences among these three mapping tools are crucial to understand
for users: 1) Mind Mapping (or Idea mapping and Recall association) visualize ideas or
concepts from mind/thoughts and create relationships among ideas, concepts, or thoughts
in unstructured format, 2) Concept Mapping (understanding of relationships) identifies

65

concepts and their relationships within a specific topic in a structured format, and 3)
Argument Mapping demonstrates arguments with logical reasoning and evidence.
Mind mapping is also known as an association map. The main application of the
mind mapping is to associate ideas that ultimately help users to remember and recall (i.e.,
memory retention) the central points of the learning content and present the content (i.e.
the content is central to the learning process). The advantages of mind mapping have
been noticed by users for 1) its free form and unconstrained structure and 2) its
value for creative thinking and brainstorming. The mind mapping is limited to simple
associations between ideas. The big picture of ideas and clear links among ideas are
usually missing in mind mapping. Different knowledge association tools could be helpful
for performing relation analysis (p. 282) of complex ideas. Therefore, the concept
mapping was developed to manage the limitations of mind mapping. Sometimes, users
are confused about the differences between concept mapping and mind mapping.
The main application of the concept mapping is to outline the relationship among
key concepts with associate ideas and present in a structured form. This mapping is also
known as a relational device or a Novakian Map (p. 282). Different concepts are
connected using cross-links connective terms (mostly prepositional phrase) that display
relationships among concepts. One of the most popular concept mapping techniques is
CMap Tools. The concept mapping is suggested as an assessment tools by many
researchers for preparing course design materials and managing qualitative data.
Moreover, meaningful learning could happen by adding a new concept to the existing
knowledge. As the concept mapping is limited to the relationships among concepts, so
the idea of argument mapping might be helpful to represent inferences between claims

66

and supports of complex ideas. Different causes and effects can be interlinked in an
argument map.
The applications of three mapping tools are different: Mind map is used to
associate ideas, topics, or stuffs; Concept Map is used to relate concepts; and Argument
map is used to make inferences between conclusions and evidences. Differences in
structure among three mapping tools are compared and summarized:

Mind map is

informal and less structured; Concept map is formal and hierarchical in form; and
Argument map has similar structure like concept map that is formal and structured form.
The level of abstraction of these three mapping tools ranges around the high
generality (i.e., Mind map), the medium generality (i.e., Concept map), and the low
generality (i.e., Argument map). Three maps have different nodes, linking devices,
linking words, and language register approaches. First, nodes of mind maps are pictures,
words, and diagrams where nodes of concept maps are boxes and nodes of argument map
are boxes and lines. Second, linking devices of mind maps are lines, line thickness,
colors, and shading; arrows are used to link ideas in concept maps; and lines, colours, and
shading are used to interrelate claims and supports in argument maps. Third, Linking
words of these three mapping tools are associated words (mind maps: associated words,
such as, use, colours, and links), relational phrases (concept maps: in relation to, is
composed of), and inferential linking words (argument maps: because, however, not).
These three mapping tools are different in terms of the language register and
granularity of these three mapping tools (Mind map: Loose; Concept Map: Medium, and
Argument Map: tightly constrained). These three mapping tools are widely justified for
students meaningful learning in educational context under different learning situations:

67

(1) Non-learning appears where there is no detectable change in knowledge, 2) Rote

learning happens when students collect new information only and where there is no new
integration of information, and 3) Meaningful learning happens when students ingrates
new perspectives and relate to their prior concepts. The quality of teaching evidently was
improved for increasing students deeper and meaningful learning and ensuring active
learning by integrating concept mapping. Davies (2011) suggests a convergence of
mapping tools that will have complementary functions of associational mapping tool
(mind map), mapping relationships (concept map), and mapping inferential structures and
logical connections (argument map) (p.293).
De Smet, M. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., Leijten, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014).
Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students' writing products, mental
effort and writing process. Computers & Education, 78, 352-366. DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.010.
Key words: Electronic Outlining, Writing Strategies, Writing Processes, Mental Effort.
An Electronic outlining is used to advance the writing performances of students.
Although, the data for this study was based on the comparison between the argumentative
texts with and without electronic outlining, from about 93 10th grades students, but the
idea of the electronic outlining could be offered as one of the ways to remodel students
writing processes in the university level-tutoring processes.
De Smet, Brand-Growel, Leijten and Kirschner (2014) suggested that the use of
the electronic outlining was helpful for students to improve their planning and writing
communication processes in argumentative text structure. Their performances in writing
fluency were improved due to the repeated practice of the writing tool, electronic

68

outlining. The complexity of the writing processes was presented as a set of distinctive
cognitive activities. Most importantly, writers need to think how to present ideas that
interpret the topic and meet the requirements of the writing audience during composing
their writings. They also have to go through crucial steps in the writing processes, likely
planning, translating, reviewing, and reflecting to illustrate their ideas in writing text on a
continuous process.
The efficiency of the writing processes is very much influenced by expertise
rather than cognitive processes. Mainly, expert writers utilize comprehensible writing
tools to clarify and elaborate their writing ideas in writing processes. This study was
focused and designed to understand the three components of the writing processes by
using electronic outlining: 1) Planning, 2) Translating, and 3) Reviewing. Moreover, this
study investigates how writers manage and interrelate these three sub-processes in the
writing processes. The main intention of the research is to examine the application and
the effect of writing strategies, for instance, an electronic outlining on the organization of
the writing processes. According to the research result, outlining can provide three
advantages during the writing processes: 1) Help to organize ideas in writing, 2) Enrich
the quality of the writing product, and 3) Recognize mental efforts in writing processes.
Above all, integrating an electronic outlining in writing processes has an effect on the
structure presentation and linguistic features of the argumentation texts. This tool requires
an intelligent use of headings, paragraphs, and connectives for making the text readable
and meaningful with all argumentative features in the text. Specifically the repeated
usage of this tool has very important advantage on the quality of the writing text. Many
scholars realized that practicing a particular writing strategy might be very useful for

69

decreasing metal stress during writing an argumentation text. While cognitive load in
writer working memory interrupts the writing processes, the quality of writing
performance can provide an inefficient, poorly structured, and incoherent text.
Similarly, teachers can incorporate the idea of the writing strategies (e.g., electronic
outlining) for providing an additional writing assistance and advancing an effective
writing instruction in writing education. Additionally, this type of integrated instruction
of using an electronic outlining effectively provides a way for writers to manage higher
order skills, for example, general problem solving, metacognitive processing, and writing
(p. 363). Future writing researchers may focus both on the technical and theoretical
perspectives of using writing tools that potentially facilitate their planning and structuring
of complex and hierarchical argumentation task.
Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002).
Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory
into practice, 41(1), 40-46.
Key Words: Collaborative Concept Mapping, Meaningful discourse, Meaningful
Learning.
Many studies have found that creating concept mapping has multiple benefits for
improving students meaningful learning in different ways. A concept map is a diagram
that is mostly used to present the interrelationships among the main ideas within a
domain. This visual network of mapping ideas is consists of nodes (i.e., communicate
concepts) and lines (i.e., demonstrate the pattern of interrelationships between ideas). It
is an instrument to identify students own conceptions, knowledge gaps, and irrelevant
arguments. Boxtel, Linden, Roelofs, Erken (2002) conducted their three experimental

70

studies for the secondary level Physics students, who are 15 to 16 years old. Data was
collected through videotaping and transcribing of students interactions in peer
collaboration tasks during designing the collaborative concept mapping. The number of
proposition per time was calculated with the intensity of the students talk during the
group activities.
The result suggests that the learning outcome within a specific discipline becomes
higher through increasing students awareness, ownership, and reflection on their own
understanding, learning, and meaning making accordingly. These learning outcomes are
strongly related to the intensity students talk within the group. Different activities on
making a concept mapping as a group task are transcribed and compared students
interaction during designing a new course on electricity. Discussing within a group helps
students to clarify the concepts and create relationships among concepts within a specific
domain of the academic discourse. It has been a great concern about using concept
mapping that does not provide the descriptions of ideas and their relationships.
The research offers that the limitation of the concept mapping is possible to
overcome through using the idea of collaborative (elaborated) concept mapping, because
the collaborative approach of creating this mapping has the strength to facilitate group
conversation about the relationships among different conceptual ideas. In a word, a
collaborative concept mapping creates learning opportunities for students to practice
thinking, reasoning, describing, clarifying, and negotiating meaning with a specific
knowledge of interest.

71

Teaching Writing

Lucas, A. F. (1990) Using Psychological models to understand student motivation

42: 103-114.
Key words: Classroom behavior, theories of motivation, teaching processes
The purpose of the research is to describe a variety of the most important current
theories, demonstrate how an instructor would view classroom behavior from each
perspective, and propose a few implications of each model for teaching. The principles of
the social learning theory are motivation, experiencing success or failure, observation.
Two aspects to social learning theory relate to: 1) the idea of the influence of success or
failure, 2) the idea of observational learning. Social learning theorists tell us that attention
is one of the powerful reinforcers teachers can give to students. Students can be
motivated by love of learning, or by interest in the subject matter. Also positive feedback
can increase feelings of competence and self-esteem. A second significant implication of
social learning theory is the idea of observation and vicarious learning. This theory
encourages the instructor to recognize the importance of reward and punishment, both
direct and vicarious, the development of motivation, as well as the fact that a lot of
behaviour can be developed through modeling.
The principles of the theory of personal Growth in learning are motivation,
creating an environment, achievement of educational, professional and personal goals.
The facilitation of personal growth considers a list of values: intellectual competence, ego
development, moral and ethical development, humanitarian concern, interpersonal
competence, capacity for intimacy, and vocational development. Intellectual competence

72

is the ability to see things as they are, to go right to the point, to separate a group of
thoughts, to detect what is relevant and what is irrelevant. This idea suggests further
critical thinking skills, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Moral and ethical development
can be defined as having a clear view of ones personal perspectives and values,
becoming conscious of standards one can use developing them, and being able to express
them clearly and forcefully.
Interpersonal competence has been described as being able to seek and offer help,
being willing and able to influence others, and creating a network of honest
communication with others. A capacity of intimacy is characterized by a willingness and
ability to commit oneself to close, caring relationship in adult friendship and love.
Vocational development involves the acquisition of knowledge and skills necessary for a
particular career. This model suggests two educational considerations: 1) Teacher can
help students to achieve both overall educational goals and their own personal and
professional goals. 2) Efforts must be made to help the students articulate the relationship
between the stated goals of a course and their own personal and professional goals.
The principles of the cognitive development theory are motivation, match,
educational goal, and stage of development of the learner. The idea proposes to motivate
students so that we must create a match for them between what we want to teach and how
and what they are able to learn. From the point of view of the cognitive theory, feedback
is the most useful when it enhances self-efficacy. Constructive feedback may increase
students confidence and motivate them to try harder, because student begins to see a
relationship between effort and performance.
The principles of the expectancy-value theory are motivation, an interaction
between students beliefs about themselves, and the perceived value of the task. The goal
of this theory is to conceptualize the interactions among motivational, cognitive, and
instructional variables. Two components are essential to recognize the achievement of a
particular tasks: 1) self-efficacy theory 2) the value of students achievement for a
73

particular task. Teacher needs to consider both expectancy and value in designing
instruction. Regarding expectancy, one would consider such matters as structuring course
material to increase the probability of student success; providing feedback that identifies
the positive aspects of a students work, while they are pointing out what needs to be
done to improve other parts of an assignment; and expressing confidence that additional
effort will bring about improvement. The value portion might suggest deliberate attempts
by the instructor to create a challenge, for example, challenging a class by asking
questions that push students to think through a problem individually or in small groups.
Or the instructor can appeal to interest value by posing an intriguing problem to be
addressed during the class. For utility value, showing how what is being taught can be
useful should enhance motivation.
Traditionally, faculties have considered preparing themselves what they will
present in the classroom. Currently they also realize the value of teaching style to
motivate their students. Several motivation theories are summarized explaining how
learners and teachers both might be benefited from the concept of the motivation.
An instructor may act as an enthusiastic role model providing frequent and positive
feedback that could improve the learners confidence to accomplish their learning tasks.
The effort is to comprehend the implications of these theories and research from personal
perspectives and experiences. Later on, such perceptions might be incorporated in
restructuring of the teaching processes.
Straub, R. (1997). Students Reaction to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory
Study. Research in the teaching of English, 31(1), 91-119.
Key Words: Students reactions, three variables (focus, specificity, mode), teachers
written comments, revision.
Most writing students utilize teachers verbal and written comments in the writing
draft. They find that some comments are more helpful than others. The research
74

presented that students reactions to teacher comments on a writing sample according to

the three variables: focus, specificity, and mode. The result showed that students are
interested in getting responses on global matters of content, purpose and organization as
on local matters of sentence structure, wording, and correctness, but they are so cautious
about negative comments. In addition, students favored detailed commentary with
specific and elaborated comments. Besides they did not prefer comments that sought to
control their writing or that failed to provide useful criticism for improving writing.
Preferred comments that provided advice, employed open questions, or included
explanations that guided revision. A theory of response is emerging that well-designed
teacher comments are mostly preferred and utilized by students to improve students
writing. The research studies on how students respond to different types of teacher
comments and presents the results of questionnaire to explore how first year college
students react to teacher comments. A set of guidelines for teachers commentary is
discussed. This research suggests that teachers should enlarge their conventional role of
examiner, critic, judge, and should take the role of reader, coach, mentor, fellow inquirer,
and guide. They should see their conversation and a give-and-take dialogue with the
student, not as a corrector or editor. Teachers may concentrate on only two or three
concerns, for instance they may ask type of writing, audience, purpose or conventions of
the writing. Besides, teachers must write their statement in a full statement & text specific
comments using words from the students writing. Teachers can exemplify their views
about the errors of the writing.
The study explores the reaction of a group of college writers to different types of
commentary in classroom instruction. Data for the study were collected from 172

75

students who responded to 40-item questionnaire about their preferences for a range of
teachers comments. The comments were selected from responses that 20 different
teachers had made on a sample student paper. The students preferred comments that
offered some direction for improvement but asserted only moderate control over the
writing.
The study considered through a survey of one group of students (142 first year
writers) at a large state university. Questionnaire (written by teachers) is used to explore
students reaction to different types of teacher comments, especially different modes of
commentary. The research suggests that teachers think more fully about the kinds of
comments they make on student writing, how those comments represent themselves and
their student on the page, and how they will likely be received. Successful comments are
those that turn back to students writing and lead them to make choices as writers. We
need to continue to investigate how students view different types of comments and how
we can make responses that challenges and encourage them to work productively on their
writing.

76

Graduate Writing Support

Calvo, R. A., O'Rourke, S. T., Jones, J., Yacef, K., and Reimann, P. (2010).
"Collaborative Writing Support Tools on the Cloud," Learning Technologies, IEEE
Transactions on, 4(1), 88-97.
Key Words: Computer supported collaborative writing, graduate writing support,
Computer supported collaborative writing (CW) is an iterative and social process.
This model is totally based on a team objective. Responsible team negotiates,
coordinates, and communicates during the creation of a common writing document. The
major emphasis of this tutoring strategy is to support academic writing for graduate
students. CSCL supports academic writing skills, and also provides features for managing
assignment, group, and peer review activities. The findings give a clear design guideline
for teachers and explicit good writing practices for students. Moreover, this architecture
supports automatic feedback, automatic question generation, and process analysis
features.
Castello, M., Inesta, A., & Corcelles, M. (2013). Learning to Write a Research
Article: Ph. D. Students Transitions toward Disciplinary Writing Regulation. Research
in the Teaching of English, 47(4), 442-477.
Key Words: Learning research writing, doctoral student, disciplinary writing regulation.
The paper aims to explore insights how graduate students manage academic
writing practices through writing regulation. Writing regulation is clarified as a complex
activity of highly situated and social nature (Castello, Inesta, & Corcelles, 2013.p. 442)
through the through-action-emotion dynamics. The crucial idea behind this research is
to analyze how graduate students use this writing regulation within an educational

77

intervention framework, such as seminar. The seminar was designed for PhD students for
writing their first research article occurs for insightful understanding
Basturkmen, H., & von Randow, J. (2014). Guiding the reader (or not) to recreate coherence: Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic
argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 14-22. DOI:
10.1016/j.jeap.2014.07.005.
Key Words: Responding to students writing, Writing Coherence, Writing Cohesion,
Rhetoric relations, Concession.
Basturkmen & Randow (2014) intends to understand an undertheorized idea,
writing coherence in the advanced EAP (English for Academic Purposes) writing
research. Writing coherence is a challenging task for students and writing facilitation
tasks need to have more focus on cohesion and coherence criteria with other criteria, such
as grammar. A qualitative inquiry was conducted to explore two types of coherence: 1)
textual metadiscourse (i.e., illocutionary intent, code glosses, logical markers) and 2)
Concessive relations in terms of discourse signals. Importantly, academic argument
papers were analyzed considering two focuses: 1) Textual metadiscourse in persuasion
(i.e., noticing how signals are used to organize texts) and 2) Construct of rhetorical
relation, with or without signaling (i.e., recognizing concessive relations are used in
argument writing). These two focuses are different discourse analytical approach where
first, textual metadiscourse in research writing relates to form and second, rhetorical
relations connect to concession in this research. The success in the academia depends on
mastering the basic skills of writing both meaningful ideas and interrelated ideas in
written words.

78

Students need to be very careful and clear about the development (organization)
of texts and provide appropriate evidences to fulfill the writing requirements of the
English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Linguistic signaling or conventionalized text
pattern can encourage readers attention for marking of cause-consequence relations
and how to connect discourse segments with the previous one. Cohesive device or
cohesive conjunctions can be used as signals for logical interpretations that lead text
coherence. Writers credibility at the postgraduate level depends on presenting evidence
in written text.
Noticing problem-solution in written text can be used to check conventional
pattern of organization. Concession clauses for providing evidence are rarely found in
both native and nonnative speakers written response. Sometimes, frequent uses of
connectors (such as besides, furthermore) have influenced negatively the overall
coherence of the Chinese-ESL Writers academic texts.
Metadiscourse refers to the idea of discourse about discourse that needs to written
explicitly by using linguistic device. Two categories of metadiscourse are 1) Textual
Metadiscourse (i.e., signals the organization of the text) and 2) Interpersonal Discourse
(i.e., signals the writers interpersonal stance to the content and the reader).
Different parts of discourse require to be interlinked for creating perceived coherence of a
text.
Signals of concessive relations are but, but actually, but rather, however, however
despite, despite, in spite of, instead, nevertheless, though, although, while.
Code glosses help to interrelate multiple ideas with clear arguments, illustrations, and
examples. Coherent writing is highly demanding at postgraduate level, whereas graduate

79

level writers are expected to be aware of presenting balanced arguments. The research
emphasized that even postgraduate writers have difficulty using code glosses and logical
markers (for example, in terms of) in writing
Writing Tutorial Applications: This research idea provides specific techniques to
respond students research writing. Usually writing tutors are expected to explain why
written text is not coherent, and facilitate how to write a coherent argumentative text and
how to ensure communicating deep insights of research ideas into writing. For facilitating
academic argument writing, readers must have the ability to recreate the coherence the
writer had in mind (p. 14). Tutor must be aware of recognizing coherence in written text
as a reader for leading writers to develop coherence in written text.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in
academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266-285. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm011.
Key Words: A code gloss, academic writing, academic discourse.
A Gloss or code gloss can be used to exemplify and reformulate ideas in academic
writing. Specific functions of reformulating are explanations, implication, paraphrase,
and specification, Hylands research found that frequent reformulation markers are:
parenthesis, i.e., in particular, particularly, that is, especially, in other words, namely,
specifically, or X, which/this means, other. Frequent exemplication markers by
discipline are such as, for example, e.g., an example of, like, for instance, say, others.

80

Graduate Writing Group

Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher

Education, 34(8), 905-916.
Key Words: Writing Groups, Pedagogy, Theory and Practice
The first section stated the research concern on writing groups along with
overarching pedagogies, theories, and practices. The second chapter presented historical
and theoretical basis of the contemporary writing group. Afterwards, the basic
characteristics and variations of writing groups are focused. In this section, Aitchinson
(2009) explores complexities of multiple sources of feedback that doctoral students must
negotiate in the context of writing groups. The reflection on writing groups is discussed.
Afterwards, Murray concentrated on how participants integrated retreat expertise in
everyday practice. At last Guerin interpreted the exchange relations of writing groups
with the lens of gift exchange theory (p.14). The third section talked about specific
awareness of doctoral writing groups. Two approaches of practice-led PhDs writing
groups are noticed: one is facilitated by supervisors in a face to face setting and the other
is by peer online.
Aitchinson and Guerin pp, 3-17
Key Words: Writing groups, pedagogy, theory, and practice
Aitchinson and Guerin (2014) stated two key focuses of doctoral writing: 1)
Writing is shaped by the academic requirements and 2) Scholarly publication. Writing for
publication is a highly rewarding activity for university communities, such as doctoral
scholars, tenured academics, funded researchers, and institutional administrators. Most
importantly, the performance of individual and institution is usually measured by the

81

quality of scholarly writing publication. The fundamental literacy for academic success is
the competence of writing and developing ideas for publication (p.3).
Catterall, J., Ross, P., Aitchison, C., & Bergin, S. (2011). Pedagogical
Approaches that Facilitate Writing in Postgraduate Research Candidature in Science and
Technology. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 8(2), 7.
Key words: postgraduate research writing, advanced academic literacy, supervision,
doctoral writing
Writing competence is a research priority in the current higher education an
writing skill is a measure of doctoral competency. The value of participation was
highlighted within the context of social writing, such as writing groups, writing retreats,
or writing for peer feedback for meeting the increasing demand of writing products from
doctoral researchers. Three ways are used to collect information about the challenges
and the successes of doctoral writing: 1) an online questionnaire, 2) individual
questionnaire, and 3) focus group discussion. Feedback on student writing is the primary
pedagogical tool for teaching and learning research writing. An advanced approach was
suggested for supporting research writing and promoting a scholarly research community.
Writing practice is the central to research knowledge production and exchange.
Writing develops as a social practice. Knowing how to write does not help one to write
as scholars, such as physicist, chemist, educational researcher, and so on; one needs to
understand disciplinary context of constructing research writing knowledge and develop
critical stance about disciplinary communities. Also graduate writers can be aware of
their professional career in three development stages within a specific discipline: 1)

82

knowledge framework and development, 2) an authorial voice, and 3) a critical

competence development.
Griffin, B. W., & Griffin, M. M. (1997). The Effects of Reciprocal Peer Tutoring
on Graduate Students' Achievement, Test Anxiety, and Academic Self-Efficacy. Journal
Of Experimental Education, 65(3), 197-209.
Key Words: Tutoring system, Graduate students, achievement, anxiety, self
efficacy.
Reciprocal Peer Tutoring (RPT) is the tutoring system where students serve as
both tutors and students. This dual role is thought to be beneficial because it enables
students to gain both from the preparation and instruction in which tutors engage, and
from the instruction that tutees receive (P. 198). The main focus of this tutoring is:
Students higher and lower cognitive performance, text anxiety and academic selfefficiency. Components of this tutoring are: instruction, support, feedback, and social
support. Three experiments, 93 graduate students, 40 questions, RPT and Non-RPT
Group. The students perception about the RPT is uniformly positive. RPT helps them to
achieve higher level educational learning objectives (Griffin and Griffin, 2012).

83