Steering Students to Success: Faculty Perceptions of the Writing Center

Khyla Breland, Daron “Ron” Brown, Daniel Dunne, T’Keya Hicks, & Gaylen Rivers

Department of Education, Northern Illinois University

HESA 573: Applied Assessment Methods in Higher Education

Dr. Jacqueline Mac

December 7, 2020

     
 
   2  

Abstract

Writing Centers are integral to student success. They support students academically and

help them develop into better writers. Given that most writing takes place in accordance with

courses taught by faculty, their perceptions of the writing center can make or break these centers.

Therefore, assessment of these centers is important not only to the service itself but to the overall

success of the university that they are a part of. To assess faculty perception, we used a

qualitative approach by interviewing eight individuals and sending out a survey that received

forty-seven responses. Our significant findings from this assessment were tactical barriers

accessing services, limited university-level support, multiple learning goals, an expectation of

consistent quality, and a desire to strengthen relationships and learning.

     
 
   3

Steering Students to Success: Faculty Perceptions of the Writing Center

Researching faculty perceptions of campus-wide academic support services is essential

within the broader context of all higher education institutions because recommendations from

faculty can often increase the likelihood of these recourses being utilized by students. For

example, in the case of Writing Centers1, faculty often encourage and even require their students

to utilize them to receive a better grade in the course. By understanding how faculty perceive and

utilize these services, we can determine the likelihood of faculty making these referrals and

driving traffic to these services that strengthen a student’s performance and ability to achieve.

At Northern Illinois University (NIU), the University Writing Center’s mission is to

“help members of the NIU community become more skilled writers”, according to their website

(2020). They offer students assistance on resumes, cover letters, essays, presentations, and other

documents pertaining to academic writing or career opportunities. The center can also serve

staff and faculty in various ways ranging from syllabi review to teaching them how to identify

plagiarism. It also gives presentations and workshops on writing related topics. The Writing

Center utilizes writing coaches, it’s director (Gail Jacky) and graduate assistants to complete its

mission., Faculty perception of the writing has not previously been assessed. Given the varying

opinions on and understanding of the University Writing Center and the fact that there is a new

director this topic warrants assessment and investigation.

The purpose of this project was to explore the perceptions and relationships that faculty

have with the Writing Center. This project was guided by the following research questions: (1)

what are faculty’s expectations of the Writing Center at Northern Illinois University (NIU)?; (2)

                                                                                                           
1
Throughout this paper, the term ‘Writing Center’ describes both writing centers themselves and the tutoring service
provided during a student client consultation. This term also references additional center services, including, but not
limited to, one-on-one and group consultations, writing workshops, and thesis and dissertation support.

     
 
   4  

what do faculty know about the services provided by the Writing Center at NIU?; (3) how do

faculty perceive the Writing Center at NIU?; and (4) how do faculty utilize the Writing Center s

at NIU? For the purpose of this assessment, we define faculty as consisting of anyone that

teaches a course here at NIU, including full-time instructors, adjunct instructors, tenured and

tenure track faculty, and contingent faculty.

Literature Review

For this assessment, there are three areas of literature pertinent to understanding faculty

perceptions of writing centers, including the purpose of the writing center, how writing centers

enhance academic performance, and faculty perceptions of the writing center. These three areas

of literature are salient because they provide a foundational understanding of the purpose of the

writing center s in higher education, whether faculty members utilize or encourage their students

to use these services, and what faculty perspectives are of the services offered.

The Purpose of the Writing Center

In this study, it is essential to define what writing centers are and their purpose at an

institution. Research by North (1984) examines the idea that many believe the use of writing

centers at institutions to be a relatively recent addition to student support, when in fact, they have

been around since the 1930s, starting at the University of Iowa. What North suggests is that

institutions are now implementing a definition of what writing centers are and who they serve.

Institutions define writing centers as a service that supports students beyond the revision of a

particular project and instead use the consultation to address the process in which the student

learns strategies for their writing to improve (North, 1984). This definition suggests that the

purpose of writing centers is not to better an assignment but to help produce a better writer.

North continues his argument by discrediting the idea many have of conceptualizing writing

     
 
   5

centers as a fix-it shop when it helps individuals become better in their writing, grammar,

punctuation, and style as a whole.

In the article  Writing Centers: Being Proactive in the Education Crisis  (Turner, 2006),

Turner discussed that writing centers help students understand their strengths and weaknesses.

She explains that tutors give students the space to realize their mistakes with their question-and-

answers system, allowing them to create solutions by talking about the papers or writing in

general. Turner then explains that writing centers empower students to learn about authority and

take responsibility for their learning. This statement suggests that tutors do not take control, but

aid students in understanding their needs to be successful.     

Tutoring services are also a part of many universities that help aid students in their

learning. Peer tutoring services consist of trained students, typically upperclassmen, who have

performed well academically in the courses they tutor (Cooper, 2010). Peer tutoring services

should be conducted until the tutee can independently and accurately grasp the information,

creating lifelong learners. Tutoring services are also used to improve and teach study skills

(Chen & Liu, 2011). While these articles share the importance of peer tutoring on colleges and

university campuses, they do not give a broad viewpoint of tutoring services. Therefore, it

creates a limitation, as it does not provide clear information for the research in which students

participate.

Another important aspect to understand in this literature review is what students

are utilizing these services. In the article Decisions…Decisions: Who Chooses to Use the Writing

Center? (Salem, 2016) the researchers talk about how writing centers often use the say they are

“open to all students,” and they “serve students of all writing levels,” but the likelihood of all

students utilizing writing services equally, is less common. The author talks about educational

     
 
   6  

choices, which is described as “tricky, and the way we make choices is influenced in a

complicated way by the environments in which we live” (Salem, 2016, p.148).

The author seeks out the reasons for those differences and suggests implementing change

based upon data collected. Understanding that access looks utterly different from one student to

another can make the concept of “open to all students” seem more complicated if not

problematic. This study offers a comparative analysis of students who do and students who do

not use writing services and takes an in-depth look at the differences in the two groups’ academic

and demographic characteristics.

In summary, existing literature suggests that it is important for writing centers to aid in the

student’s development and create better writers by helping them understand their strengths and

weaknesses. It is also important for writing centers to understand that the writing center that

access looks different from student to student. Now, we turn to describe how writing centers

support students’ academic success.

How Writing Centers Enhance Academic Performance

To further situate this project, it is essential to understand how the relationship between

student services like the writing center strengthens a student’s academic ability. This relationship

is significant when considering that most credible academic institutions continue to support these

often costly and labor-intensive student support services that generate no income for the

institution. Existing literature provides insight into why these services persist amid routine

administrative budget cuts showing that these services have broad positive impacts on most

students’ ability to persist and complete their degree (Reinheimer & McKenzie, 2011).

There are many understated benefits to these services that focus less on the academic

support provided and more on the social and relational aspects of working with a tutor. Tutoring

     
 
   7

can provide a means of social integration into the campus learning community and stays in line

with the theory that knowledge is socially constructed (Belenky et al., 1986). These more

qualitative aspects of tutoring blend these services' social and academic components to help

students develop self-confidence, improve motivation, and empower them to improve their work

(Reinheimer & McKenzie, 2011). When looking locally at the effectiveness of these programs

at Northern Illinois University (NIU), Gail Jacky, Director of the University Writing Center and

ACCESS Tutoring programs, asserted that data shows students who participate in these

programs regularly score a full letter grade higher than those do not engage in these programs.

Gail also referenced a department statistic that of the graduate students working on

dissertations with her department, 97% have success getting through the process with

the support of these programs. Most significantly, Gail spoke of how many individual students

were positively impacted through the 10,300 sessions that occurred within this department last

year (G. Jacky, personal communication, October 10, 2020). These figures are salient because

they represent not only academic support given but also the development of professional

relationships and a sense of connection with others on campus, which, as we know, is a leading

factor to student retention (Vance, 2016).

In reviewing the literature on these programs' usefulness and application, there is an

overwhelming theme that most institutions are utilizing these programs for students that fit into

high-risk demographics. These groups are often required by faculty to participate in these

programs and include students taking remedial classes, on academic probation, or are first-

generation (Vance, 2016). Understanding that many of these populations are frequent users of

these services begs the question of how do these programs adjust to become more responsive and

relevant to this population? Additionally, having faculty mandate participation may provide

     
 
   8  

students with a path to utilize the support service, but what do faculty expect to see out of their

student’s work in return for delegating supplement instruction to these programs? From the

literature we have reviewed, besides faculty working with these populations who mandate these

programs, it is unclear how well faculty uses such services (Russo-Gleicher, 2013).

Faculty Perceptions of the Writing Center

To the best of our knowledge, faculty perceptions of the Writing Center have not been

thoroughly considered in scholarly literature. One study examined how faculty members may

perceive tutors within a writing center (Thonus, 2001). This study examined the roles of the

tutor, tutee, and instructor; however, for the purposes of our assessment, we will pay particular

attention to the perceptions of course instructors and how they perceived the tutor’s role within

the writing center at Indiana University. The results of this qualitative, ethnographic study

indicated vastly different perspectives of tutors and how they attribute toward the development

of their students’ work.

Upon interviewing each course instructor, four of the seven instructors who identified as

tenured/tenure-track faculty members reported their perception of tutors as acting as a surrogate.

This means that instructors believe the tutor’s role should mirror that of the instructor by yielding

similar results, despite having a student meet with the instructor or with the tutor (Thonus, 2001).

For instance, one instructor shared he expects the tutor to be attentive to detail by following the

same marking scheme as him, which entails marking all errors that do not conform to

conventional writing standards (Thonus, 2001). In contrast, some of the graduate teaching

assistants who served as instructors reported the tutor’s role should differ from their own by only

carrying out the specifically guided instructor recommendations (Thonus, 2001). As the

instructor, one shared that their role is to ask guided, Socratic questions to aid students in

     
 
   9

thinking critically. Conversely, the tutor’s role should model a direct approach by fixing, rather

than asking Socratic questions (Thonus, 2001).

Overall, while this study provided us with an understanding of how course instructors at

Indiana University perceived tutors’ role within their writing program, this study offered a few

critiques and limitations concerning our proposed research questions. To begin, this study was

not generalizable nor indicative of the perceptions that faculty members had across writing

centers at other institutions. With that said, we cannot assume the attitudes and perceptions of

faculty members at Indiana University will apply to faculty members at NIU. Additionally, our

assessment will solely focus on faculty members only—not all course instructors. Because this

study explored various course instructors' perceptions, such as graduate teaching assistants, this

literature was not entirely relevant to our assessment.

Frameworks to Assess Faculty Engagement with Writing Centers

Given that there is not much research on this topic, there is also not an established

framework to examine faculty perceptions. We remained open to all possible perspectives and

emerging data from our assessment of the writing center offered at NIU. According to Denton &

Hasbrouck (2009), practice must come before theory, and there is a need for theoretical and

operational models.

Methods Overview

We now focus our attention on creating definitions around the actual methods and tools

that we developed to discover meaningful data in this assessment. In this section, we describe the

collection plan that we envisioned for gathering data, the method we utilized to code and distill

any findings that were useful for our study, and the guidelines we used to maintain that our

assessment was done to the highest standards in which we are capable of (Appendix D).

     
 
   10  

The vision for the assessment we describe in this paper has been co-created by this group

over the Fall 2020 semester after seeking input from the most credible sources on this topic to

which we had access. Our Applied Assessment professor, Dr. Jacqueline Mac, NIU’s Director of

Planning & Assessment, Dr. Brandon T. Lagana, and our campus client, the Director of the

University Writing Center/ACCESS Tutoring, Gail Jacky, are the stakeholders that assisted in

guiding our focus while developing our assessment procedures. Through our stakeholders’

advice and counsel, we have agreed upon the following methods and guidelines to better

understand faculty perceptions and expectations of the Writing Center.

Data Collection Overview

After our initial meeting with Gail, we learned that there had never been any research or

assessment done specifically on our focus area, which includes faculty perceptions and

expectations of the Writing Center. As a result, we knew that we would be starting from scratch

without having existing research on which we could base our assessment and study. Since we

were starting from scratch, we decided to utilize the interview method of collecting data to gather

initial broad perspectives from faculty.

We chose to use interviews as our primary tool for investigating a subgroup of faculty

members who teach writing infused courses. Gail provided some promising leads of two to three

faculty members who we could use as initial willing interview contacts. We were hopeful these

participants could help us reach additional faculty and cast a wider net with our assessment.

These leads were provided to us based on Gail’s knowledge of these faculty members being avid

users of the Writing Center.

We knew that we would need additional input besides these few suggested contacts, so

we also connected with Brandon to utilize his regular communication with faculty as an in-road

     
 
   11

to disseminating our simple survey. This survey would be an additional collection method as

well as providing another avenue for faulty to opt-in to a longer-form interview for our

assessment. With the exploratory interviews, we hoped to discover significant themes reported

by frequent users. We hoped to find themes reported by those faculty members who did not use

the resources at all and who we did not have time to interview with our survey results. We

anticipated that through these interviews, we would be able to determine more concrete areas for

our campus client to focus on when conducting further assessments for service developments in

the future.

Regarding the implementation timeline for our assessment, we are aimed to finalize our

interview questions (Appendix A) and inquiry email to faculty members by October 15th

(Appendix C). After the group and our assessment stakeholders reviewed our agreed upon

questions, we planned to do our first round of email inquiry by Friday, October 16th. We

planned on using Gail’s connections and Brandon’s platform and his advice on how to best

communicate with faculty, to elicit as many responses as possible.

We implemented Brandon’s recommendation in using the primer survey (Appendix B) as

soon as our initial interview request emails to faculty were sent. This primer survey consisted of

two open-ended questions and one yes-no question: (1) what do you like about the writing

center?; (2) what do you not like about the writing center?; and (4) would you be willing to share

more in a 30-minute interview on your responses? (see Appendix B). The survey ensured that we

would receive enough to analyze and that the faculty we selected for our interviews were the best

available sources for our assessment.

Receiving this snapshot of elemental data from our 47 primer survey participants allowed

us to analyze responses from a much broader audience of faculty that we otherwise would not

     
 
   12  

have had the opportunity to interview. After we have compiled all the faculty members who

agreed to meet with us for an interview from these two means of outreach, we chose the faculty

members who best meet the criteria in which our campus client expressed the most room for

growth (i.e. writing infused classes, undergraduate level, education majors).

We scheduled and interviewed eight faculty members virtually between the third and

fourth week of October 2020, from the 19th to the 30th. These interviews were scheduled for 30-

minute increments but were designed with an additional 30 minutes of flexible time after, in the

event that a faculty member had more to share. These meetings consisted of two interviewers

from our group and one faculty member. These interviewers used the pre-determined primary

and follow up questions determined by this group and reviewed by our stakeholders (see

Appendix A). Interviewers alternated in asking questions and took separate detailed notes on the

faculty member's responses. Two different group members were then coding these responses by

examining the interviewer’s notes and watching the recorded video session. The analysis and

coding of the data collected in these interviews was examined and interpreted in the first two

weeks of November from the 1st to the 15th. After this analysis, we determined our next steps in

delivering a useful final report to our campus client.

Data Analysis and Coding

Conducting a proper analysis was crucial to achieving the purposes of our assessment. To

gain further knowledge and insight of the expectations and perceptions faculty members have of

the writing center, we needed to ensure that we thoroughly investigated the data from each of the

conducted interviews. This coding process was critical in developing specific recommendations

for the writing center and helping our client understand our assessment results.

     
 
   13

For our assessment, we employed a commonly used method for analyzing our interviews.

This method is known as thematic analysis, “a method for identifying, analyzing, organizing,

describing, and reporting themes found within a data set” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 6). We used

this method to guide us in identifying patterns across data that reflect participants’ perceptions,

experiences, and behaviors. In turn, this helped us better understand the expectations and

perceptions faculty members have regarding the writing center.

Due to the limited research that currently exists on faculty perceptions of writing centers,

we did not have a clear indication of what patterns to search for in our initial data analysis. As a

result, we analyzed our data by using an inductive approach and following four phases:

familiarization, assigning codes, identifying patterns and themes, and conducting a final review

of themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). For some of these phases, we worked in pairs; however, in

other phases, we worked collectively as a larger group.

The first phase of our data analysis process focused on familiarization. We did this by

dividing into groups of two to interpret our interview notations and familiarize ourselves with the

data. From there, we entered phase two, where each group was assigned preliminary codes to

describe the content collected from each of their respective interviews. In phase three, each

group collectively identified the assigned patterns and themes that represent the most salient

aspects of our data. Finally, in phase four, we thoroughly reviewed the codes and themes to

ensure the data cannot be further extracted. By the end of our data analysis and coding process,

our goal was to reach data saturation and finalize coherent and descriptive codes.

Assessment of Team Positionality and Assessment Ethics

Our team collectively has experience in the following functional areas in higher

education and student affairs: Academic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Orientation, Fraternity

     
 
   14  

& Sorority Life, Student Conduct, Housing, Advising, Athletics, Outdoor Recreation, and

Student Life. Further, we hold unique perspectives as our team consists of three Black women,

one Black man, and one White man. When considering this team's viewpoints serving as the

core researchers of this assessment, it is crucial to factor in our individual perspectives. Although

our epistemological perspectives differed, these differences were not drastic enough to be a

reason for concern. Within our approach as a team, our unique perspectives will influence us to

approach this assessment from a variety of directions. We will not only consider what reality is

for each respondent, but also the effects that time and experience have on faculty perceptions.

We all align, for the most part, with elements of constructivist and critical theory paradigms. Our

goal will not only be to explore the experiences of faculty members to help improve the quality

of services offered through the Writing Center, but it will also be used to provide evidence for

evaluating the number of faculty members who currently utilize the services. With that said, our

epistemological perspectives more closely align with a qualitative approach and will be used

throughout this assessment.

To maintain ethical standards when conducting this assessment, it was important to

maintain the confidentiality and anonymity of our participants and data. We showed that our

work was reliable and that we took care to represent data as accurately as possible. We worked to

ensure that our interviewees were fully aware of our assessment's purpose, methods, and uses.

One way we planned to assist in maintaining assessment standards is through a constructivist and

critical theory paradigm lens. According to Biddix (2018), constructivism is a philosophical

perspective that seeks to understand reality from individual interpretations, accounting for

environmental factors such as culture and context. We understand that it would be important to

separate our own personal perspectives from the study. To ensure that we do not put our own

     
 
   15

perspective in this study, we chose to associate our assessment with a critical theory paradigm.

Subsequently, the critical theory paradigm would allow us to emphasize the social realities that

incorporate historically situated structures. Thus, allowing us to promote social change through

the paradigm rather than our own perspectives.

Limitations

Although this assessment provides a foundational context about the way faculty members

experience and perceives the Writing Center at Northern Illinois University (NIU), it is important

that we first recognize the limitations in this study. In particular, there were several considerable

limitations concerning our overall data collection.

One limitation of this study concerning the data collection was the lack of data on faculty

members who do not use the Writing Center. While we gained important information and

perspectives, we did not capture the perceptions of faculty members who did not use the writing

center. To truly provide a comprehensive analysis of varied faculty members' perceptions, future

studies can interview participants who did not use the writing center to understand their

perceptions.

A second possible limitation was the close-knit relationships each interviewee had with

Gail, the Director of the Writing Center, who could have informed how each interviewee

interacted with use. As indicated earlier in our data collection section, we selected interviewees

based upon the recommendations of faculty members Gail provided us. Although it reflects well

that Gail has established profound relationships with faculty members across the institution, it

also means the results of the study had the potential of being biased. However, because of this

close-knit relationship, some respondents may have had more insider perspectives to share than

others, resulting in perspectives that would have otherwise been inaccessible to us. Future studies

     
 
   16  

should consider different sampling techniques and criteria, which could include requiring at least

half of the participants not to have a close relationship with Gail.

Participant Demographics  

From the survey, we received a total of forty-seven responses from faculty. Participants

represented departments from the Colleges of Business, Education, Engineering, Health and

Human Services, Liberal Arts and Sciences, and Visual and Performing Arts. We also had

participants from University Libraries, the Center for Nonprofit and NGO Studies, the School of

Global and Public Affairs, and the Graduate School. Although participants reflected a breadth of

departments, 36% of the participants were a part of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and

21% of the participants were a part of the College of Education. As a group, these faculty had

been instructors ranging from 0-4 years to 40 years. 40% of the participants in the survey had

taught for fifteen years or more.

Of the 47 survey respondents, we were able to interview eight participants. This group

was more representative and did not follow the same pattern of the survey respondents in being

mostly from the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Education. Interviewed participants represented

the Colleges of Business, Liberal Arts and Sciences, Health and Human Services, and

Education, the School of Global and Public Affairs, the Graduate School, and University

Libraries. 63% of the interviewees had taught for fifteen years or more, which is a higher

percentage than those surveyed.

Thematic Findings  

After analyzing the survey responses and interview data, we identified five emerging

themes (Appendix E). First, faculty identified the desire to strengthen relationships and learning.

Second, limited university-level support due to limited budget and budget cuts. Third, multiple

     
 
   17

learning goals. Faculty identified Expectations of Consistent Quality as the fourth theme due to

inconsistent quality and mixed experiences with consultants. Lastly, faculty identified tactical

barriers accessing writing center services, which represented logistical barriers that prevent a

participant’s ability to use these services. These themes were focal points and prominent

throughout the interviews. In the following sections, these five themes will promote

improvement and recommendations for the writing center as well as highlight what the writing

center does well according to faculty.

Desire to Strengthen Relationships and Learning

One of the primary needs expressed consistently throughout the interviews and surveys

was the need for designated consultants within each college and a desire for the writing center to

strengthen relationships with faculty members. Many participants shared that having designated

consultants physically or virtually within each college would allow for more accessibility. It

would also allow the faculty members to explain their expectations to each consultant to ensure

the services being offered are consistent with what the faculty members would like to see. One

participant shared an example of this by stating the following:  

In the online environment, if there were some that were designated to be for our students,

that would be awesome because then I can actually meet with those people and talk about

the assignments for the semester, which would make their feedback even better for my

students.  

In this quote, the participant highlighted the possibility that designated writing center consultants

could alleviate logistical challenges as well as provide even more relevant services to students.  

Although many of the participants expressed the need for designated consultants, some

also shared recommendations and feedback on how to better serve students and build stronger

     
 
   18  

relationships with faculty members. One of these suggestions was to conduct follow-up reports

after each consultation with a student. A participant in this assessment suggested the following:  

Do you know what would be helpful? If you had some kind of report that you provided

the student and faculty member, for example, there could be a check-list report that said,

“here’s the things we reviewed with the student…if those could be sent after a session,

that would be helpful so that I can complement the writing center and vice versa.  

This quotation indicates that faculty members would like to be more engaged and involved with

the writing center to know what their students are learning during their consultation visits with

tutors. It would also help combat the barrier of accessibility because it would allow faculty

members to know which students are utilizing the writing center so they can further assist them

individually. As a result, this could help improve the relationship between the writing center and

faculty members while also reducing the high-volume of students who attend the writing center.

Faculty reported that often students preferred to work repeatedly with the same

consultant. Although faculty recognized that this strategy could magnify the scheduling

challenges, repeated student usage, often with the same consultant, had faculty members seeing

more significant seismic shifts in their students’ overall writing ability. This adjustment pertains

to undergraduates and graduate-level students working on larger on-going assignments, thesis,

and dissertations work. Because of this preference, a student’s development of a relationship

with a designated consultant they routinely work with looks to have an added ability to produce

longer-lasting writing improvement and make these individual sessions more effective.

One area where faculty expressed reservations in an individual consultant's ability to

provide consistent service focused on moving in and out of various content areas. As it relates to

moving from a liberal arts paper to a scientific research paper, a faculty member reported that

     
 
   19

“some consultants have helped students develop a ‘flowery introduction,’ but for Economics, the

content is typically more straightforward and to the point. Therefore, she realizes there is a gap in

expectations sometimes.” This style shift example shows how faculty can begin to question a

session’s effectiveness when consultants are asked to be an expert for all different academic

writing styles and produce the same high quality standards in each content area.

Limited University-Level Support

Another concern that was bought up during interviews is the limited budget that the

Writing Center has. Many participants have expressed their concern about the budget as it relates

to its marketing techniques. One of the participants said, “Word of mouth marketing has been

effective as a funneling tool to get students to this service”. Continuously using word of mouth

marketing more than other marketing techniques can cause students not to receive proper

information regarding the center. As stated previously, students and faculty are unaware of the

services the Writing Center provides, which can come from their lack of funding from the

university to engage in different marketing techniques. Another participant expressed their

concerns of the Writing Center’s budget by stating:

That’s concerning to me…if you have a unit on campus that is highly effective, and you

know all students can take advantage of that…it behooves me to wonder why we’re

cutting their budget when there could be budgets in other places that could be trimmed.

This is a value add for NIU.

Due to the importance of the Writing Center, faculty members are concerned that due to the

decrease in budget, this resource for students will no longer be able to satisfy

their students’ needs if the proper information is not given out.

     
 
   20  

The majority of the faculty who were interviewed mentioned concerns regarding the

Writing Center's lack of support. This lack of support then pours into the center’s connectivity to

other university departments and faculty members. Some of the participants spoke to the notion

that if the Writing Center had more support, it would create a more engaging relationship with

other departments. Having one central person in the Writing Center, Gail Jacky, has caused a

divide between departments as there has not been a lot of engagement across departments and

the Writing Center. One faculty member stated: “If this was to happen [increasing relationships

other departments] it would be a stronger center”. Another participant stated, “In the past, it has

not been well-organized, feels that the Writing Center is a one-woman show and in general not

enough support in the Writing Center ...it seems like Gail is doing the bulk of the work”. This

circles back to the word of mouth in funneling student participation, as it shows that it is more

about Gail needing to get out there more, being the only one who does majority of the work in

the Writing Center.

Most faculty we interviewed spoke to the need for more support and resources in the

form of additional full-time personnel working in the writing center. This suggestion was very

clearly articulated by one of our survey respondents, “From what students tell me, the center

needs to hire more people. It is often difficult to get an appointment, especially if a student wants

to have regular, repeated appointments.” Other faculty echoed this sentiment saying, “I notice

they don’t have very many permanent staff… they need a bigger budget for more staff…

currently they have only two permanent staff members and the rest grad students.”

This challenge of limited personnel becomes even more noticeable when considering

the previously mentioned desire expressed by faculty for content expert writing consultants who

focus on working with specific schools or areas of study. With the current level of personnel

     
 
   21

resources available to the Writing Center, we have gathered from our interviews that faculty

members are uncertain that the center can consistently offer the highest level of service to all the

various schools on campus.

Multiple Learning Goals

Faculty members commented on how although these individual writing center tutoring

sessions clearly produced positive results in student writing, they were insufficient with

providing the type of all-encompassing writing support that many students need. This gap

applied particularly to students enrolled in writing-intensive undergraduate courses that one

faculty member said “need all the support they can get from the writing center.” Generally

speaking, faculty viewed writing center consultation sessions as a service geared towards putting

out fires in student assignment work versus a re-educating and skills strengthening service that

many faculty believed their students actually need more.

Instead, some faculty communicated their perception of consultants being overly task-

oriented with students during the session. When a student works with a writing center consultant,

there were often too many goals to achieve throughout their short session. One faculty member

remarked, “The writing center gives assignment-based help, not overall writing help,” and that it

“helps with specifics, not the big picture.” Even when considering this dual challenge of focusing

on the short-term assignment goals or long-term overall writing improvement, faculty spoke on

their expectation that the writing center should meet students “where they are at” and how they

believe that the center is currently achieving this goal.

Expectations of Consistent Quality

When it comes to faculty members determining the quality of the consultation that their

student receives, we observed faculty citing experience from both ends of the spectrum. The

     
 
   22  

entire group of faculty that we interviewed reported that most of the students referred to the

center had positive results in their assignments and varying levels of improvement in their

writing ability. However, when they heard back from students who did not benefit from

the consultation, they mostly heard about quality inconsistencies in the service being provided by

the consultants.

This theme focuses on the perception of sporadic inconsistency in the consultation quality

provided to students from the Writing Center. One faculty member referenced this theme

directly, stating, “I think that the consultant [their student] saw maybe did not quite tell them to

do the right thing” while another faculty member spoke more generally saying, “I think there is a

lack of support and resources for the center to do the highest quality work.” These statements

allude to a faculty perception of the Writing Center being less consistent due to multiple

extenuating circumstances.

One of these circumstances focuses on general discrepancies between what a faculty

member’s writing standards or expectations are and the differing standards of the consultant who

is working with that student. One faculty member shared that she would hope a consultant would

“be correct in what [they are] doing and not to contradict some of the things that I tell my

students.” Even though this faculty member also stated they knew consultants typically

recommend to student clients that if there is any doubt in whose standards to follow, they should

default to what the professor prefers; this still could be an area of confusion for a student and a

place of frustration for the professor.

Another faculty member expressed that they understand how overwhelming and

frustrating it must be for a consultant to work with student clients who need more support than

the limited time in a typical writing center tutoring session allows. Our interviews showed that

     
 
   23

faculty members are aware of this challenge of getting so much done in a short time and that they

expect consultants to be patient and give students their full attention. This comment leads us to

believe that the faculty member is questioning if all consultants can possess the non-writing

skills needed to work with all students. This aspect of how the writing center’s most used

offering matches the varying developmental skill levels of the types of student clients it serves

and how these offerings align with faculty expectations for these services deserves further

examination.

Tactical Barriers Accessing Services

Faculty participants who were both interviewed and surveyed consistently reported the

barriers and challenges they faced when accessing the Writing Center. These barriers and

challenges included limited logistical access, appointment availability for students, and limited

awareness from faculty and students. In terms of logistical access, many participants indicated

the logistical challenges they encounter as the semester unfolds. This was illustrated by a

statement made by one of the faculty members:  

The reality of what we’re working with is that once the semester starts to really hit its

pace and students have writing projects due, the writing center has to give their full-time

attention to their students and not to other units…I don’t know if that’s a drawback or

not.  

This quote demonstrates that faculty members may have limited access to the writing center

when it reaches its full capacity. Due to the high demand for student requests, it becomes

increasingly difficult for other units— those who need services outside of tutoring

consultations— to access the writing center throughout the semester. However, although this

faculty member shared the challenges with accessing the writing center, they demonstrated an

     
 
   24  

understanding of why the center prioritizes students first but wishes there were more staff to

assist with other departments’ requests.  

Further, not only was it challenging for faculty to access the writing center for their

specific needs, but it can be challenging for some students as well, especially as it relates to

appointment availability for students. Another faculty member who routinely recommended the

writing center to their students described the challenges their students faced with scheduling

appointments with the writing center. This participant stated, “already it’s hard, right? When it

gets to the busy part of the semester, I warn my students to make their appointments far in

advance.” This reflects that students must be cognizant of when they schedule their appointments

to ensure they will be able to meet with a tutor. However, for some students, this was particularly

challenging for those who were required to meet with writing tutors or consultants for

assignments and coursework.  

Finally, another tactical barrier for accessing the writing center, which faculty members

also described, was students' opportunity to become more aware of writing center services. One

participant mentioned, “students did not realize they could get the type of information they

received from the writing center.” Students often learned about the services the writing center

provides during their appointment with a consultant or tutor. This common occurrence indicates

that there is a need for the writing center to increase the awareness of its services and resources.

Although this assessment focused on faculty perceptions, the level of awareness students have

about the writing center may impact how much faculty members may need to educate students

about this resource. If faculty members do not share how useful this service is, students may not

use this valuable resource.  

Implications and Recommendations for Practice

     
 
   25

Overall, these findings offer several implications and recommendations for practice. One

thing that seemed to be a consensus amongst faculty while conducting interviews and surveys

was a petition for an increased writing center budget. The emphasis that faculty put on making

the writing center a university priority was abundant. One faculty member stated, “The

recommendation is that it have a strong and stable source of funding and that be prioritized in the

hierarchy of need of the university. This support center should be seen as crucial to the essential

mission of the university.” As such, we recommend that the university increase its financial

support to the Writing Center.

Second, there is a need for more personnel to help provide assistance, organization, and

consistency to the Writing Center. This need can be met by increasing the number of full-time

personnel, graduate assistants, and undergraduate student staff. These full-time staff members

and graduate assistants can serve as liaisons to specific departments and as content area experts

while providing overall infrastructure support to the writing center and allowing the

undergraduate student staff to focus on working with their peers/other students.

Third, when it comes to building consistency, it is also important that we create pathways

for students to build relationships with consultants. Recommending repeat sessions with the

same consultant can help track trends, showing improvement of the student’s work on

reoccurring issues or lack thereof. If this is a preferred arrangement for students, it could allow

for overall writing improvement due to conformability and familiarity. It is also important to

reconsider and implement content area specialists for certain schools to provide more structure.

Fourth, when it comes to building accountability with the students going to the writing

center, we recommend creating a central faculty database to follow up on student work and aid in

creating accountability measures. This database could be a central location where faculty could

     
 
   26  

keep track of what their students have been working on in their appointments. This system will

also help create a way to keep track of progress or lack thereof, attendance, and accountability

between faculty and students.

Finally, increasing awareness on campus was another consensus area of improvement

among faculty. To increase collaboration with faculty, we recommend setting up faculty

meetings where there is an in-depth opportunity to educate faculty on the Writing Center's

services. Additionally, any increase in marketing and advertisements could benefit students from

the improved awareness and presence on campus.

Conclusion

Interviewing NIU faculty members who utilized the Writing Center, allowed us to gain

their perceptions on the services it provides and the impact it has on students’ success. The data

gathered indicates that students who utilize the Writing Center show improvements in their

writing. It also suggests that faculty members should become more informed of the services the

Writing Center provides, giving them an opportunity to make their students aware. Additional

research is needed from faculty members who do not use the writing center, particularly ones

who do not have knowledge on what the Writing Center offers. Nevertheless, our assessment

provides quality information on the Writing Center, a university resource. Now that we know

more about faculty perceptions, this information can be used as a resource to the Writing Center

to help guide future assessments. They can use what we have gathered as a guide for future

implementations in the Writing Center to help guide students’ success.

   

     
 
   27

References

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of

knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Biddix, J. P. (2018). Research methods and applications for student affairs. San Francisco, CA:  

John Wiley & Sons.

Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise

research. Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise, 191-205.

Cooper, E. (2010). Tutoring Center Effectiveness: The effect of drop-in tutoring. Journal of

College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 21-34.

Chen, C., & Liu, C. C. (2011). A case study of peer tutoring program in higher

education. Research in Higher Education Journal, 11, 1.

Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. A. N. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its

relationship to consultation.  Journal of Educational and Psychological

Consultation,  19(2), 150-175.

North, S. M. (1984). The idea of a writing center.  College English,  46(5), 433-446.

Northern Illinois University. (n.d.) About the University Writing Center.

https://www.niu.edu/writing-center/about/index.shtml

Reinheimer, D., & McKenzie, K. (2011). The impact of tutoring on the academic success of

undeclared students. Journal of College Reading and Learning,  41(2), 22-36.

Russo-Gleicher, R. (2013). Qualitative insights into faculty use of student support services with

online students at risk: Implications for student retention.  Journal of Educators

Online,  10(1), 1-32.

     
 
   28  

Salem, L. (2016). Decisions decisions... Who chooses to use the writing center? The Writing

Center Journal, 35(2), 147-171.

Thonus, T. (2001). Triangulation in the writing center: Tutor, tutee, and instructor perceptions of

the tutor's role. The Writing Center Journal, 22(1), 59-82.

Turner, M. (2006). Writing Centers: Being Proactive in the Education Crisis. The Clearing

House, 80(2), 45-47.

Vance, L. K. (2016). Best practices in tutoring services and the impact of required tutoring on

high-risk students. (Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Kentucky University). Retrieved from

Online Theses and Dissertations. https://encompass.eku.edu/etd/441

     
 
   29

Appendix A
Interview Questions

1. What do you know about the writing center?

a. How did you learn about the writing center?
2. Have you ever recommended it to your students?
a. How was their experience?
b. Did you see student performance improve as a result?
3. How has your experience as a faculty educator been with the writing center?
4. What are your expectations of the writing center?
a. Are they being met?
b. How?
c. Where are they not being met?
d. How?
5. Have you ever utilized it for yourself? What for? Was it helpful?
6. Do you have any recommendations for the writing center?
a. What would you like to see?
b. How could this service be more useful to you as a faculty member?
c. Any improvements?
d. Any major challenges?
7. Are there any questions that we did not ask you that we should have?
8. Do you have any other questions for us?
9. We are looking for additional faculty to share their perspectives with us. Do you know
any other faculty members who do not use the Writing Center or who recommend their
students to use it who might be interested in speaking with us?

     
 
   30  

Appendix B
Primer Survey

Introduction: Title of the Assessment Project: Assessment of Faculty Perceptions of the

Writing Center
Investigator: Khyla Breland
Investigator: Gaylen Rivers
Investigator: Dan Dunne
Investigator: T’Keya Hicks
Investigator: Daron Brown

Description of the Assessment Project: The purpose of this assessment project is to gain
insight on NIU’s Writing Center. This study will contribute to the practice of the Writing Center
by exploring faculty’s knowledge of the writing center, along with their recommendations. This
study will consist of a 4-question survey that will help gather the necessary information. This
project is for the HESA 573 course, Applied Assessment, taught by Jacqueline Mac, Ph.D.
Demographic Questions: Name, NIU email, Department, Courses Taught, Years teaching at
NIU
1. Have you ever used or recommended the writing center? Why or why not? (open ended)
2. What do you know about the services offered by the Writing Center? (open ended)
3. Do you have any recommendations for the writing center? What would you like to see?
(open ended)
4. Would you be open to participating in a 30-minute interview about your experiences with
the writing center? During the week of…. (add option in case they are available but not
that week)

     
 
   31

Appendix C
Email

Subject: Faculty Perceptions of the University Writing Center

Hello,
My name is (insert name), and I am a graduate student who is enrolled in HESA 573: Applied
Assessment being taught by Jacqueline Mac, Ph.D. As a part of this course, my group members
and I (who are cc’d on this email), are assessing faculty perceptions of the Writing Center. Gail
Jacky, the Director of University Writing Center and Access, recommended you as someone who
we should reach out to. We would like to interview you for about 30 min on your experiences
and perception of the Writing Center. If you are willing to meet with us, please let us know by
(deadline date).

Thank you,

(insert name)

     
 
   32  

Appendix D

     
 
   33

Appendix E

Major Themes