writing center research

Research & Writing Center

Consultations

Chat with Us

The Peer Review

Writing Center Theory and Research: A Review

Rebecca Babcock, University of Texas Permian Basin

This study reviews the current underlying theories relevant to writing centers as well as the research methods being used in the early 21st century. The first section covers the theories used in writing center scholarship from the 1980s onward based on influential articles and texts. The second section covers published research both in the Writing Center Journal (WCJ) and other publications from 2010 onward and discusses the current state of research methods. Readers may not be aware of some of the fine divisions of theory; for example, the distinction between collaborative learning and social constructivism. Researchers may benefit from the overview of methods, which covers the most popular and current methods (survey and textual analysis) and promising but little-published research methods, such as ethnography.

Keywords : collaborative learning, social constructivism, writing as a social process, Zone of Proximal Development, scaffolding, cognitivism, feminism, transfer of learning, threshold concepts, tutoring encounter, social and environmental justice, survey, mixed methods, textual analysis, descriptive studies, theoretical research, archival research, quasi-experiment, quantitative methods, narrative inquiry, grounded theory, case study, usability, ethnography

This article surveys the underlying theories and methods at play in writing center research. Stephen North, in The Making of Knowledge in Composition (1987), noted that in the field of rhetoric and composition there was “no unanimity on important issues” and that “it seemed as if the field did not have a core or a center: there seemed to be no way to frame its central problems, nor any method by which to set about trying to resolve them” (n.p.). Writing center research is not in this position today, but taking a step back and looking at the existing threads of theory and research can do for writing centers what North suggested for composition: frame the field’s central problems and develop methods to try to solve them. To be sure, the word “problems” can be misunderstood in the same way that many students misunderstand the word “critique.” By problems I do not mean troubles or negative circumstances, and I do not think North did either. It is more like a math problem, in that a problem is a research question that needs to be solved. An overview of this content would take another article. In this article I attempt to frame the field’s central beliefs/values in terms of research methods and theories.

1: A Review of Theories Influencing Writing Center Practice and Scholarship

Eric Hobson, in “Maintaining Our Balance: Walking the Tightrope of Competing Epistemologies” (1992), called the search for the one true theory of writing centers as a “hopeless effort” (p. 108) and explained that writing centers do not need to choose just one theory: all proposed theories can be considered valid. Lisa Ede, in “Writing as a Social Process: A Theoretical Foundation for Writing Centers?” takes this explanation a step further: “Practice without theory, as we know, often leads to inconsistent, and sometimes even contradictory and wrongheaded, pedagogical methods” (1989, p. 4). Despite this warning, as I tell my students, there is no atheoretical tutoring or teaching. Some sort of theory—pedagogical, political, philosophical—is being enacted whether or not the person chooses to acknowledge it. In what follows, I describe the major theories that have influenced—and continue to influence—writing center scholarship and practice. These categories are based on evidence from the literature rather than on my (or others’) opinions on what they should be. I present them in a rough chronological order. Other orders are possible.

1.1 Collaborative learning refers to people learning together as equals; it is active learning and stands in opposition to the banking model of education. Kenneth Bruffee’s “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’” and “Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’” (1984a, b) are foundational documents, and collaboration is still represented in contemporary writing center theory. Donald McAndrew and Thomas Reigstad (2001) explained that “collaborative learning organizes people not just to work together on common projects but, more importantly, to engage in a process of intellectual, social, and personal negotiation that leads to collective decision making” (p. 5). The use of peer tutors is based in the theory of collaborative learning. Tutor and writer work together probing, questioning, evaluating, and discussing the work at hand. Tutors also learn from the process: “Both writer and tutor grow as writers because they collaborate on the process and the product of writing” (McAndrew & Reigstad, 2001, p. 6).

1.2 Social constructivism/constructionism is a post-modern theory that posits knowledge does not exist “out there” but is constructed by individuals and groups in communication. Andrea Lunsford’s famous article “Collaboration, Control and the Idea of a Writing Center” brought social construction to the fore in 1991, framing the ideal writing center interaction as a Burkean Parlor [1] event. Even though collaborative learning and social constructivism have been conflated many times in the literature (e.g., Murphy, 1994), they are distinct. It is possible to collaborate on a project that has top-down objectivist parameters, in which case knowledge would not be socially constructed even though the work and learning is collaborative. John Nordlof critiqued social constructivism, stating that sometimes the information is “out there” in the form of MLA requirements, etc. Moreover, Nordlof argued that social constructivist theory does not “clarify tutoring approaches [or] provide impetus for research” (2014, p. 45).

1.3 Writing as a social process is the theory that writing itself is a social act (as opposed to being learning and knowledge, which the first two theories deal with). Lisa Ede convincingly argued for this theory as it relates to writing centers back in 1989, maintaining that theories of collaborative learning did not go far enough. According to Ede, if writing is individual then collaborative learning is “unnatural” since only “beginning or second-best writers would need the support and collaboration that in-class peer groups and writing centers provide” (p. 6). McAndrew and Reigstad (2001) classified these theories as “talk and writing” (p. 4), but the prevalence of social media in today’s world provides evidence that this social process can also take place via text over a computer. Frank Smith (1987) has written of joining the literacy club as a metaphor for writing as a social process. Writing center tutoring allows students to join the academic literacy club through their interaction with a tutor.

1.4 The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), created by Soviet Psychologist Lev Vygotsky in the 1930s, proposes that a learner can achieve more in the presence of a more capable peer, even if the peer does nothing besides be present. A related Vygotskian contribution is the idea that children need to use speech when performing tasks beyond their level of difficulty. The writing center tutorial interaction is implicitly based on these theories: the use of talk is needed to accomplish difficult tasks, and “the concept of the…ZPD provides a productive lens for describing tutoring strategies in writing center conferences” (Mackiewicz and Thompson, 2018, p. 4). Similarly, Nordlof (2014, 2020) determined through his research that ZPD was an underlying theory of writing center tutoring and scholarship. Rebecca Day Babcock, Kellye Manning, Travis Rogers, Courtney Goff, and Amanda McCain (2012) came to the same conclusion using a grounded theory approach through which they found most of the examined studies were based on a Vygotskian model where learning happens in the presence of a more capable peer.

Vygotskian theories are demonstrated in many articles without being explicitly referenced, including Tom Truesdell’s “Not Choosing Sides: Using Directive and Non-Directive Methodology in a Writing Session” (2007) and Peter Carino’s “Power and Authority in Peer Tutoring” (2003). In “Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development,” Ali Aljaafreh and James Lantolf described a 13-step heuristic showing levels of directivity ranging from the learner acting independently to the tutor “provid[ing] examples of the correct pattern” (1994, p. 471). Although their continuum relates to lower-order concerns, it demonstrates the non-directive/directive binary is actually not a binary but two poles on a continuum, and that, according to Vygotskian theory, the level of assistance or directivity are based on the needs of the tutee. The two “poles” can be and are accommodated by the same theory.

1.5 Scaffolding is the process whereby learners achieve what they are capable of through assistance, achieving more than if left alone to complete the task. Scaffolding was first proposed by David Wood, Jerome Bruner, and Gail Ross (1976), who defined it as a “process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts” (p. 90). According to Wood et al., the scaffolding process has six steps, each of which have clear analogues to writing center tutoring: 1. Recruitment (getting the learner interested in the task); 2. Reduction in Degrees of Freedom (simplifying the task); 3. Direction Maintenance (keeping the learner on task); 4. Marking Critical Features (pointing out where the learner is on track or off track in relation to the goal); 5. Frustration Control (reducing stress); and 6. Demonstration (modeling).

According to Isabelle Thompson (2009), the Vygotskian encounter includes scaffolding. Thompson discussed direct instruction, cognitive scaffolding, and motivational scaffolding, which are based on terms developed by Jennifer Cromley and Roger Azevedo (2005) in research about adult literacy . Direct instruction involves giving answers and telling the tutee what to do. Cognitive scaffolding involves breaking down tasks, giving hints, and asking, “What’s next?” (Thompson, 2009, p. 423). Motivational scaffolding involves a tutor providing feedback and encouraging a student to continue. Other scholarship that addresses scaffolding in the writing center includes Jo Mackiewicz and Isabelle Thompson’s “Motivational Scaffolding, Politeness, and Writing Center Tutoring” (2013), which links scaffolding and politeness in tutor talk; Talk about Writing (Mackiewicz & Thompson, 2018) , a book-length study based on concepts of instruction and cognitive and motivational scaffolding strategies used by experienced tutors; and Neal Lerner’s The Idea of a Writing Laboratory (2009b), which links scaffolding to a master/apprentice model of learning that includes reflection.

1.6 Cognitivism is a theory that “attempts to equate writing proficiencies with stage-models for thinking and views writing as problem solving” (Carino, 1995, p. 126). Although writing centers have not embraced cognitive theories over the years, cognitivism has been taken up by composition studies. According to Sarah Liggett, Kerri Jordan, and Steve Price, “while this model [Flower & Hays] has influenced writing center pedagogy, writing center researchers have not developed a cognitive process model of tutoring” (2011, p. 77). As such, I predict that the cognitive model will have a resurgence. Interested readers should consult the collection Contemporary Perspectives on Cognition and Writing edited by Patricia Portanova, Michael Rifenburg, and Duane Roen (2017), the chairs of the Conference on College Composition and Communication Standing Group on Cognition and Writing.

1.7 Feminism is based on the belief that all people are equal and invests in the dismantling of hierarchies. McAndrew and Registad argued that writing center tutoring is a form of feminist teaching because ideas of equality inform peer tutoring and that “tutor and writer work toward a common goal” (2001, p. 7). In Women’s Ways of Knowing , Mary Field Belenky, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger, and Jill Tarule (1986) explained the concepts of “connected teaching” and “teacher as midwife” in which connected teachers assist students in bringing out their own ideas rather than acting as dispensers of knowledge. Midwife teachers (or tutors) “support their students’ thinking, but they do not do their students thinking for them or expect the students to think as they do” (pp. 217-18).  A seminal article on feminism and tutoring is “The Politics of Tutoring: Feminism within the Patriarchy” by Meg Woolbright (1993).

Feminism can be applied to more than just tutoring. Michelle Miley in “Feminist Mothering: A Theory/Practice for Writing Center Administration” (2016) applies the concept of feminist mothering (as opposed to patriarchal mothering) to writing center administrative work. In this model the mother/writing center director maintains an outside identity, insists on shared partnership, and raises children/tutors with feminist values. Miley further discusses feminist theory and its connection to writing centers in her chapter “Bringing Feminist Theory Home” (2020).

1.8 Transfer of learning means taking something someone has learned and using it in a similar or different context. This concept suggests that we cannot teach skills in isolation; instead, we must explicitly tell students how they can use these skills in other contexts. Bonnie Devet (2015) provided a primer on transfer theory and research from the domains of educational psychology and composition and explained how transfer applies both to consultants and to their work with student writers. In addition, Heather Hill (2016) applied transfer to the context of tutor training by instructing tutors to engage in explicit transfer talk with tutees to make sure tutees understand a writing concept before moving on. Hill discussed more about transfer in writing centers in her 2020 chapter in Theories and Methods of Writing Center Studies . Pam Bromley, Kara Northway, and Eliana Schonberg (2016) conducted a study on transfer and found that all in all, students do engage in transfer from writing center work to other contexts.

1.9 The theory of threshold concepts posits that novices must grasp certain foundational understandings when entering a discipline. In writing studies, the concepts are: writing is an activity and a subject of study; writing speaks to situations through recognizable forms; writing enacts and creates identities and ideologies; all writers have more to learn; and writing is always a cognitive activity (Adler-Kassner & Wardle, 2015). In “Threshold Concepts in the Writing Center: Scaffolding the Development of Tutor Expertise,” Rebecca S. Nowacek and Brad Hughes posited an additional threshold concept for writing centers—that of experienced, effective conversational partners for writers regularly inhabiting the role of “expert outsider” (2015, p. 181)—and relate threshold concepts directly to scaffolding tutor development and knowledge. Sue Dinitz, writing in WLN, also discussed “Changing Peer Tutors’ Threshold Concepts about Writing” (2018).  

Soon we will likely see scholarship discussing threshold concepts in light of tutee knowledge. In fact, Nowacek’s and Hughes’ 2015 chapter discussed how tutors might use threshold concepts to guide reluctant or misguided writers to better understandings and to help faculty understand the content of the discipline of writing studies. Lisa Cahill, Molly Rentscher, Jessica Jones, Darby Simpson, and Kelly Chase used ideas suggested by Nowacek and Hughes to develop their own “set of beliefs” to guide their writing center work (2017, p. 14).

1.10 Writing center as concept and writing center as place/space. Most studies have looked at tutoring methods rather than writing centers as—conceptual or real—places or spaces (Boquet, 1999); however, some types of theorizing look at the writing center as a conceptual space. For instance, Bonnie Sunstein (1998) discussed the writing center tutorial as a kind of pedagogical “liminal space” where people can talk freely about language and writing. Writing centers also can be liminal textually, spatially, culturally, professionally, and academically/institutionally when writing centers are positioned on a borderland—sometimes erased, sometimes enhanced by their in-between positioning. Anis Bawarshi and Stephanie Pelkowski (1999) suggested applying Mary Louise Pratt’s “Contact Zone” metaphor for the writing center to counteract the dangers of writing centers co-opting students’ language and writing and replacing them with an uncritical standard. In the writing center contact zone, students and tutors are encouraged to critique and analyze the subject positions imposed on them by and through academic discourse.

1.11 The tutoring encounter. Babcock et al. (2012) developed a theory of the tutoring encounter by using grounded theory to analyze almost 60 qualitative studies of writing centers published between 1983 and 2006. What follows is their expression of this theory:

Tutor and tutee encounter each other and bring background, expectations, and personal characteristics into a context composed of outside influences. Through the use of roles and communication they interact, creating the session focus, the energy of which is generated through a continuum of collaboration and conflict. The temperament and emotions of the tutor and tutee interplay with the other factors in the session. The confluence of these factors results in the outcome of the session (affective, cognitive, and material). Wolcott (1989) put it well when she wrote that “each conference represents a unique blending of variables—tutor personality, tutor priorities, student personality, student background, and student text” (p. 25). (2012, p. 11-12)

Concrete examples of this theory of the tutoring encounter occur widely in writing center publications and Babcock and colleagues are currently testing it against real data (2019).

1.12 Social and environmental justice. Other burgeoning theories are social and environmental justice. For example, social critique and activism have resulted in recent movements to bring multiculturalism, postmodern perspectives, and political activism to the forefront of writing center theory and research. Harry Denny (2010) wrote of the intersections between various identities (race, class, gender, nationality) and writing center work. Anne Ellen Geller, Michele Eodice, Frankie Condon, Meg Carroll, and Elizabeth Boquet (2007) brought in concepts of tricksters, time, a learning culture, anti-racism, and communities of practice to our understandings of how writing centers operate and how directors and tutors can work together to foster a learning culture. Greenfield and Rowan (2011), in their award-winning edited collection, presented more food for thought at the intersection of racism and writing centers, especially foregrounding issues of language and institutional racism. Romeo Garcia’s “Unmaking Gringo Centers” (2017) is also an article worth reading on this subject. [2]

2: A Review of Writing Center Research Methods

Writing center practitioners have long been interested in and concerned with research. In 1984, North called for writing center practitioners to examine what actually happens in tutoring sessions through descriptive case studies. More recently, research has been strongly promoted by the International Writing Centers Association (through grants and awards) as well as scholars in the field. For instance, Paula Gillespie, Alice Gilliam, Lady Falls Brown and Byron Stay produced Writing Center Research: Extending the Conversation in 2002, providing frameworks and models for would-be researchers; Rebecca Babcock and Terese Thonus published Researching the Writing Center: Towards an Evidence Based Practice in 2012 (revised edition 2018), providing an overview of what research has been done and a framework for further studies; Liggett, Jordan, and Price brought forth “Mapping Knowledge-Making in Writing Center Research: A Taxonomy of Methodologies” in 2011; and Jackie Grutsch McKinney published Strategies for Writing Center Research in 2016, providing a step-by-step introduction for beginning and experienced researchers alike. Most recently, Jo Mackiewicz and Rebecca Babcock edited the collection Theories and Methods of Writing Center Studies (2020) . In the following sections, I provide a review of historical and current writing center research methods for readers to form a better understanding of both the past and present condition of writing center research.

2.1 A brief history of writing center research. The first call for writing center research came in Lindquist’s dissertation (1927; quoted in Lerner, 2006) when he called for research by writing laboratory supervisors to determine effective teaching methods. A flurry of theses and dissertations were done at the University of Chicago between 1924 and 1936 (Lerner, 2009a), and studies in this period were by and large experiments or quasi-experiments where groups of students were taught using one or another method and results were compared (Lerner, 2007). For example, Essie Chamberlain’s 1924 thesis studied high school classes using the “recitation” and “supervised study” methods. Chamberlain found the recitation method, which equates to a workshop approach in which students read and critiqued each other’s work, to be superior to the supervised study method (students working independently with periodic teacher conferences). The first published research study related to writing centers was by Warren Horner (1929), based on his 1928 dissertation. The experiment compared the laboratory method and the recitation method. The laboratory method consisted of all writing taking place in the classroom along with teacher-student conferences. The recitation method classes used peer review as well as lectures and demonstrations about writing and discussions over readings. All writing was completed at home with students logging in their time spent working. Horner found a very small gain in writing skills among the laboratory group, but the significant finding was that they spent half the time to achieve the same results.

According to Lerner (2009a), after the 1920s and 1930s, writing center research seemed to drop off the map, with only two dissertations completed between 1940 and 1970. Again, in the 1970s, research emerged that was mostly experimental and quasi-experimental. Also introduced around this time was theoretical work on writing centers, such as Jeanne Simpson’s dissertation, “A Rhetorical Defense of the Writing Center,” which appeared in 1982. After North’s 1984 call for research on tutoring sessions, qualitative research increased—still mostly in dissertations (Lerner, 2007). Janice Neuleib also called for additional research in 1984. Although she called for case study research, the protocol she described resembles teacher research as she suggested tutors should take careful notes on the students they tutor, do a needs assessment, prioritize issues, tutor the student, assess what happened, and make future plans.

A research explosion began in the 1990s with more and more scholars and practitioners turning their attention to empirical, data-driven research in writing centers. This is most easily seen in Lerner’s dissertation bibliography (2009a), since dissertations are mostly a research genre. According to Lerner’s bibliography, up until 1980, 14 PhD dissertations had been written on writing centers and labs, jumping to 19 in the 1980s alone, 37 in the ‘90s and 72 in the first decade of the 21 st century. In fact, most writing center research, historically and currently, took place in dissertations, much of which has not been published (Liggett, 2014).

2.2 Current trends in research methods. In 1987’s The Making of Knowledge in Composition , Stephen North presented his version of the types of research being done in composition studies at the time. Recently, other typologies of writing center research have emerged, most notably from Liggett, Jordan, and Price (2011) and Lauren Fitzgerald and Melissa Ianetta (2016). Fitzgerald (2012) used similar typology (Historical, Theoretical, Empirical) in “Writing Center Scholarship: A ‘Big Cross-Disciplinary Tent.’” These typologies give an overview of the field and allow novice researchers and scholars to situate the research they are contemplating, both as consumers and producers . Such taxonomies are inevitably imperfect and suffer from exclusion (what does not neatly fit) and permeability (research that bridges more than one category).

In “Theory, Lore, and More: An Analysis of RAD Research in WCJ , 1980-2009” Dana Driscoll and Sherry Wynn Perdue (2012) investigated research published in WCJ in its first thirty years. They found that not much research that could be considered Replicable, Aggregable, and Data-Driven (RAD) had appeared in the pages of WCJ . In fact, only 16% of the articles could be categorized as RAD research according to their rubric. However, Mackiewicz and Thompson, writing in 2018, found that “over the past three years, more articles discussing RAD or using RAD methodology have been published in The Writing Center Journal than the number appearing for the 29 years from 1980 until 2009” (p. 1).

I extended Driscoll and Perdue’s research of WCJ articles by identifying which research methods were used between 2010-2015. I also sampled publications other than the core writing center venues through a search of Academic Search Complete using the keywords “Writing Center” and “Research” to find articles published between 2010-2015. Later I added WCJ articles published in 2016-2018 and other relevant studies to illustrate the categories. I did not attempt a quantitative analysis similar to Driscoll & Perdue (2012). In the subsequent sections, I categorize the research methods within this dataset. Although some of the methods described below are entire research frameworks, sets of guidelines that come as a package (Holton & Walsh, 2017), I am including them alongside methods to offer the reader an understanding of research approaches being used in the field resulting in publication. These research “packages” are known as methodologies. They typically encompass approach, theory, and method. Interview, observation, and analysis of text are the qualitative methods which are the tools used in various methodologies. Action research, case study, grounded theory, and ethnography are all methodologies based on these methods with various theoretical approaches and aims. Readers interested in more information on methodology can consult such works as Peter Smagorinsky’s “The Method Section as Conceptual Epicenter in Constructing Social Science Research Reports,” Theresa Lillis’s “Ethnography as Method, Methodology, and ‘Deep Theorizing’: Closing the Gap Between Text and Context in Academic Writing Research,” and Methods and Methodology in Composition Research , edited by Gesa Kirsch and Patricia Sullivan.

2.2.1 Survey has always been a popular method in writing center studies and continues to be. Surveys are usually quantitative but they can be qualitative as well with the use of open-ended questions. Stephen Neaderhiser and Joanna Wolfe (2009) used surveys quantitatively in “Between Technological Endorsement and Resistance: The State of Online Writing Centers.” A qualitative survey was conducted by Bethany Bibb (2012), in which she surveyed tutors and instructors about grammar instruction. Of note is that Bibb was an undergraduate when she conducted this study and that it appeared in an all-undergraduate issue of WCJ . Also appearing in this issue was another survey-based study by Jennifer Nickaly (2012) about consultant guilt. Another notable survey is Anne Ellen Geller and Harry Denny’s “Of Ladybugs, Low Status, and Loving the Job: Writing Center Professionals Navigating Their Career” (2013). Kathleen Coffey, Bridget Gelms, Cynthia Johnson, and Heidi McKee (2017) surveyed students and consultants to look at collaborative writing teams and the role of tutor/consultant as facilitator. Sarah Banschbach Valles, Rebecca Day Babcock, and Karen Keaton Jackson (2017) surveyed writing center administrators for demographic information, some of which, like race, age, and native language, had never been gathered before for this population.

2.2.2 Interviews involve some level of personal contact between the researcher and participants and are typically conducted in person, by phone, via webcam, or in some cases via email. Some interviews involve learning from a famous scholar, such as “Writing Center Work Bridging Boundaries: An Interview with Muriel Harris” by Elizabeth Threadgill (2010) in the Journal of Developmental Education . In a similar vein, Stacy Kastner (2017) conducted an interview with Michael Spooner. Other studies use interview as the main means of data collection such as The Working Lives of Writing Center Directors by Nikki Caswell, Jackie Grutsch McKinney, and Rebecca Jackson (2016). Cilla Dowse and Wilhelm van Rensberg (2015) used questionnaires and interviews to study a week-long graduate student workshop on proposal writing during which non-native English-speaking students worked with each other in small groups and individually with tutors.  

2.2.3 Mixed methods research is the combination of qualitative and quantitative data, notably suggested for composition studies by Cindy Johanek (2000). Several subsequent studies have used mixed methods, especially the combination of survey and interview. One such study is “All the Best Intentions: Graduate Student Administrative Professional Development in Practice” by Karen Rowan (2009) in which she both surveyed and interviewed Graduate Student Administrators and writing center directors about their experiences with mentorship. Kate Pantelides (2010) used mixed methods as she combined a survey of writing center clients with a discourse analysis of a face-to-face writing conference about composing online discussion board posts. J. M. Dembsey’s 2017 study compared Grammarly® feedback and asynchronous online consultants’ feedback both qualitatively and quantitatively. Another mixed methods study, Perdue & Driscoll’s “Context Matters: Centering Writing Center Administrators’ Institutional Status and Scholarly Identity” (2017) examined surveys and interviews on writing center administrators’ attitudes toward research. Robert Weissbach and Ruth Pfluger (2018) conducted an experiential mixed-methods study of peer tutors working with engineering students in which they devised a tutor training program. Their data consisted of completed logs and evaluations.

2.2.4 Textual analysis is the most prevalent research method in this sample. Types of texts analyzed those related to writing centers such as publications about writing centers, session reports, artifacts from online tutoring sessions, and marketing materials such as websites. Student texts brought to the writing center are not commonly analyzed. Ligget, Jordan, and Price, who themselves analyzed writing center publications, describe text-based studies as a process of “gather[ing] a set of pertinent documents, look[ing] for and interpret[ing] selected patterns to create a new reading of the texts, and explain[ing] what the patterns contribute to disciplinary understanding” (2011, p. 66). 

2.2.4.1 Publications related to writing centers . Liggett, Jordan and Price (2011) reviewed writing center literature and then revised North’s categories of research, including developing some of their own categories. Although they described their research as theoretical, it can also be classified as a textual analysis of publications related to writing centers. Driscoll and Perdue (2012) used a grounded-theory approach to analyze WCJ articles, evaluating articles for the degree to which they used RAD research. Lerner, in “The Unpromising Present of Writing Center Studies: Author and Citation Patterns in Writing Center Journal , 1980-2009” (2014) analyzed the frequency and patterns of citations of journal articles. Kathryn Valentine (2018) used content analysis to review tutor guidebooks for material on listening.

2.2.4.2 Session reports. Rita Malenczyk, in “‘I Thought I’d Put That in to Amuse You’: Tutor Reports as Organizational Narrative” (2013) analyzed the stories tutors told in their session reports through the lens of organizational theory. Laurel Raymond and Zarah Quinn (2012), both undergraduates at the time of writing, quantitatively examined tutor reports to identify students’ most common priorities for sessions and tutors’ most common concerns. Mary Hendengren and Martin Lockerd (2017) analyzed exit surveys, especially looking at negative student feedback, to assist writing centers in improving their practice.   

2.2.4.3 Artifacts from online tutoring sessions. Carol Severino along with Jeffrey Swenson and Jia Zhu (2009) identified quantitative differences between feedback requests from native English speakers and non-native English speakers in asynchronous tutoring artifacts (written communication) between students and tutors. Severino and Shih-Ni Prim (2015) conducted a quantitative study of online tutor responses to Chinese students’ word choice errors. In another focus on asynchronous tutoring, Cristyn Elder (2018) analyzed thousands of emails sent to Purdue Writing Lab’s “OWL Mail” and categorized and quantified them according to the type of help they asked for.

2.2.4.4 Writing center materials. Muriel Harris, in “Making our Institutional Discourse Sticky: Suggestions for Effective Rhetoric,” studied writing center websites, brochures, and reports through a rhetorical lens. Randall Monty (2015) used Critical Discourse Analysis to examine the data of official International Writing Centers Association publications, blogs, and websites; tutor response forms; and a corpus of individual writing center websites. In his words, Monty’s goal was “to understand how writing center stakeholders create disciplinary place and space” through rhetoric and the resulting discourse (p. 33). Sherry Wynn Perdue, Diana Driscoll, and Andrew Petrykowski studied writing center job advertisements from 2004-2014 presenting quantitative results and offering suggestions for the future. Calle Àlvarez (2017) used documentary investigation to examine materials, such as articles, books, and websites, from nineteen Colombian writing centers. 

2.2.5 Descriptive studies are those that focus on the kind of writing center data that North called for in 1984—data from the tutoring session, such as direct observation. Using data from tutoring sessions, Mackiewicz and Thompson (2014) described tutors’ use of politeness with tutees to enact motivational scaffolding. Sarah Nakamaru (2010) observed tutoring sessions to qualitatively and quantitatively categorize the types of lexical feedback tutors were giving. Robert Brown (2010) used discourse analysis to study representations of audiences, both real and imagined, in recorded tutoring sessions focused on personal statements for medical school applications. Yelin Zhao (2018) conducted a conversation analysis of tutoring sessions between a non-native English-speaking tutor and one non-native English speaker and a native English speaker tutee. Sam Van Horne (2012) coded student papers for revisions carried out after the conference, interviewed each consultant, and observed their writing conferences.

2.2.6 Theoretical research. Although theoretical research is not empirical and does not meet the requirements for RAD research, it is present on several research typologies, so it is included here as well. Jackie Grutsch McKinney’s “New Media Matters: Tutoring in the Late Age of Print” (2009) is a highly anthologized theoretical article about tutoring new media. Romeo Garcia’s “Unmaking Gringo Centers” (2017) is another example of theoretical research. Roberta Kjesrud and Mary Wislocki (2011) published on introspection and personal experience regarding administrative conflict. Finally, Nordlof (2014) conducted a theoretical investigation of Vygotsky and scaffolding in relation to writing center work.

2.2.7 Archival research is becoming common in composition research (Hayden, 2015; Ritter, 2012), and I predict writing center research will follow. Two articles in the data set using archival research are Lori Salem’s “Opportunity and Transformation: How Writing Centers are Positioned in the Political Landscape of Higher Education in the United States” (2014) and Stacy Nall’s “Remembering Writing Center Partnerships: Recommendations for Archival Strategies” (2014).

2.2.8 Focus groups are a useful, though underutilized, method of gathering data. One recent example of writing center research that uses focus groups is Sue Dinitz and Susanmarie Harrington’s 2014 study on tutoring sessions in history and political science to shed light on the disciplinary/generalist tutor debate. Their study included faculty focus groups and transcripts of tutoring sessions. Another example of focus group research is Tammy Conrad-Salvo and John M. Spartz’s 2012 study on the usefulness of Kurzweil text-to-speech software to students when revising papers.

2.2.9 Quasi-experiment. Experiments in the writing center context are very rare since it is difficult to control circumstances and generate random placements. Holly Ryan and Danielle Kane (2015) presented a quasi-experiment by looking at different types of classroom visits and their effectiveness. Because they used existing classes, the placement in groups was not completely random, making it quasi-experimental. Luuk Van Waes, Daphne van Weijen, and Mariëlle Leijten (2014) studied students’ use of an online writing lab (with static content) as they worked on completing an assignment through a quasi-experiment where they used a keystroke-capturing system to determine students’ writing processes. Trenia Napier, Jill Parrott, Erin Presley, and Leslie Valley (2018) used a quasi-experiment design—holistically grading research papers and comparing classes that participated to those that did not—to examine the effectiveness of their program.

2.2.10 Quantitative methods are not very common in writing center studies. Rowena Yeats, Peter Reddy, Anne Wheeler, Carl Senior, and John Murray (2010) used quantitative methods to mine data of those who had used the writing center versus those who did not. They found “a highly significant association between writing centre attendance and achievement” as well as retention (p. 499). Notably, although a dissertation and not a peer-reviewed article, D. Elton Ball (2014) used quantitative methods to measure the connection between writing center attendance and retention, which also showed positive results. In “Instruction, Cognitive Scaffolding, and Motivational Scaffolding in Writing Center Tutoring” Mackiewicz and Thompson (2014) presented a quantitative study of ten highly rated tutoring sessions and coded them for different kinds of scaffolding moves made by the tutors. They found that successful tutors used instruction more often than either kind of scaffolding.

2.2.11 Tutor research grows out of careful planning and reflection on practice. It differs from reflection and narrative in its focus on designing research from the onset. Carol Severino and Elizabeth Deifell, (2011) who have used a tutor research approach, explain that “The rationale for tutor-research is that tutors need to know as much as possible about their students as writers and learners to tutor them better; this knowledge is then communicated as research to tutors in similar situations with similar students” (p. 31). As an example, Christian Brendel (2012) carefully designed a comparative multilingual tutoring approach, practiced it with a particular tutee, and interviewed the tutee. Severino and Prim (2015) designed a project to focus on how a multilingual tutee learned and used vocabulary as well as the types of lexical errors he made. Severino and Prim collected data including interviews with stakeholders, paper drafts, written comments on drafts, tutoring logs, written observations, and a cloze (fill-in-the-blank) test. This type of research is very promising, and the field would benefit from seeing more of it in the future.

2.2.12 Narrative inquiry uses stories as the unit of analysis. Emily Isaacs and Ellen Kolba (2009) used narrative inquiry to investigate a program that placed teacher candidates into middle and secondary school writing centers. Through stories and reflections they presented their findings. This too is different from a simple “here’s what we did; here’s what happened” genre because they deliberately and thoughtfully used this method. Caraly Lassig, Lisette Dillon, and Carmel Dietzman (2013) used narrative inquiry to describe a graduate writing group.

2.2.13 Grounded theory (GT) has become a very popular research methodology in writing center studies. GT may be “a method, a technique, a methodology, a framework, a paradigm, a social process, a perspective, a meta-theory of research….GT is probably all of these at the same time” (Holton & Walsh, 2017, p. 161). Dagmar Scharold (2017) used GT in a study on cooperative tutoring, which is a kind of tutoring where there are two tutors and one tutee. So she could immerse herself in her data over a period of months, she used software (Transana) that plays the audio of interviews at the same time as the transcripts in a form of “closed captioning” (p. 40). Neal Lerner and Kyle Oddis’s study (2018) on the citation practices of WCJ authors also used grounded theory. As Lerner had looked at the actual citations in a previous study (2014), this study used surveys and interviews with authors.

2.2.14 Case study . True case studies are still rare in writing center studies. One of the only stand-alone case studies in the recent literature is Natalie DeCheck’s (2010) use of qualitative coding and semi-structured interviews to describe the relationship between one tutor/tutee pair; DeCheck was an undergraduate at the time of the study. Other case studies are often combined with another form of research. For instance, Severino and Deifell (2011) combined case study with tutor research, and Steven Corbett (2011) used case study alongside rhetorical and discourse analysis, ethnographic methods, questionnaires, interviews, and course materials.

2.2.15 Usability testing. Although usability testing is an unusual method in writing center studies, Alan Brizee and colleagues (2012) described usability testing for accessibility of the Purdue Online Writing Lab for people with blindness and low vision. Other writing center researchers could perform usability testing of writing center websites and online writing centers as well as brochures and handouts.

2.2.16 Institutional ethnography. Michelle Miley (2017) conducted an institutional ethnography of her new institution, which functioned as research and as an orientation and acculturation to her new situation. Interestingly, I found no actual published ethnographies of writing centers in my data set, although they abound in dissertations.

3: Conclusion

This review serves as an introduction to the theories and research methods current in writing center studies or at least that are finding their way to publication. Interested readers may also want to consult Theories and Methods of Writing Center Studies (Mackiewicz & Babcock, 2020). Of note in this review of published methods is the lack of teacher research, case studies, and ethnographic studies, which, in concept, would be the ideal types of writing center research. The reason for this is that writing center practitioners value story and experience. Teacher research is natural because reflective tutors do this type of research as they conduct their tutorials: trying things out, reflecting on them, refining them, re-trying, etc. Much of the research that is not actually research but presentation of narrative could be better framed as bounded case study with the simple change of getting Institutional Review Board clearance and collecting data systematically. Finally, ethnography, with an embedded researcher detailing the daily life and practices of a writing center, would provide scientific rigor along with the literary craft in the final write-up that many writing center practitioners desire.

One reviewer of this piece wanted me to express my own opinion about these research methods and theories. Although that was not my intent—my intent was to reflect what was going on in the literature but not what I thought should be going on—I can offer some thoughts. As I noted briefly above, teacher/practitioner research seems the most logical method for writing centers who employ reflective tutors and directors. Case study and ethnography also offer compelling possibilities. In the past, linguistics, discourse analysis, politeness, and analysis of talk were more prominent. However, see books and articles by Mackiewicz and others listed here in the “Descriptive” section. Taking a step back, overall, I cannot recommend specific theories or methods to researchers. The theory or method a researcher chooses will depend on their personal philosophy and outlook. John W. Creswell and J. David Creswell (2018) explained that one’s research method can and should be determined by one’s worldview, which they describe as Postpositivist, Constructivist, Transformative, or Pragmatic, each of which will be attracted by different methods. Postpositivists, who seek data and objectivity, will tend toward to quantitative measures such as surveys and experiments. Constructivists, on the other hand, recognize that different actors will have different understandings of a situation and tend toward qualitative measures such as narrative inquiry, case study, and ethnography. Transformative researchers will seek to “confront social oppression” and will tend toward action research or theories like Critical Discourse Analysis (p. 9). Finally, a researcher with a Pragmatic worldview will seek to solve problems using all the available means and may tend toward mixed methods studies and multiple theories and methods of analysis.

A better understanding of theory and research could assist writing center practitioners to get to where North wanted composition to be 30 years ago: to have a “way to frame its central problems” and a “method by which to set about trying to resolve them” (n.p.). The threads of research and theory can work together as the warp and weft of the fabric of writing center scholarship.

• Kenneth Burke was a rhetorician and scholar who popularized the idea of knowledge as an unending conversation; the parlor is where the conversation takes place. ↑
• Works in linguistic justice are also appearing. See Linguistic Justice on Campus (Schreiber, Lee, Johnson, & Fahim, 2021) which has a section on writing centers. See also several articles in issue 39.1-2 of the Writing Center Journal. ↑

Adler-Kassner, L., & Wardle, E. (2015). Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies . Utah State University Press.

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.

Àlvarez, G. Y. C. (2017). Perspectiva de los centros de escritura en Colombia. Hallazgos, 14 (28), 145–172.

Babcock, R. D., Dean, A., Hinsley, V., & Taft, A. (2019). Evaluating the synthesis model of tutoring across the educational spectrum.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus , 57 , 57–77.  https://doi.org/10.5842/57-0-810. https://spilplus.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/810

Babcock, R. D., Manning, K., Rogers, T., Goff, C., & McCain, A. (2012). A synthesis of qualitative studies of writing center tutoring, 1983-2006. Peter Lang.

Babcock, R. D., & Thonus, T. (2012). Researching the writing center . Peter Lang.

Babcock, R. D., & Thonus, T. (2018). Researching the writing center . Revised Edition. Peter Lang.

Ball, D. E. (2014). The effects of writing centers upon the engagement and retention of developmental composition students in one Missouri community college [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Lindenwood University.

Bawarshi, A., & Pelkowski, S. (1999). Postcolonialism and the idea of a writing center. Writing Center Journal, 19 (2), 41–58.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberg, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Basic.

Bibb, B. (2012). Bringing balance to the table: Comprehensive writing instruction in the tutoring session. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 92–104.

Boquet, E. (1999). “Our little secret”: A history of writing centers, pre-to-post open admissions. College Composition and Communication, 50 (3), 463–482.

Boquet, E. (2002). Noise from the writing center . Utah State University Press.

Brendel, C. (2012). Tutoring between language with comparative multilingual tutoring. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 78–91.

Brizee, A., Sousa, M., & Driscoll, D. N. (2012). Writing centers and students with disabilities: The user-centered approach, participatory design, and empirical research as collaborative methodologies. Computers & Composition , 29 (4), 341–366.

Bromley, Pam, Northway, Kara, Schonberg, Eliana. (2016, April 12). Transfer and dispositions in writing centers: A cross-institutional mixed-methods study. Across the Disciplines, 13 (1). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/articles/bromleyetal2016.pdf

Brown, R. (2010). Representing audiences in writing center consultation: A discourse analysis. Writing Center Journal , 30 (2), 72–99.

Bruffee, K. (1984a). Collaborative learning and the “Conversation of Mankind”. College English , 46 (7), 635–652.

Bruffee, K. (1984b). Peer tutoring and the conversation of mankind. In G. A. Olson ( Ed.), Writing Centers: Theory and Administration ( pp. 3-15). NCTE.

Cahill, L., Rentscher, M., Jones, J., Simpson, D., & Chase, K. (2017). Developing core principles for tutor education. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship , 42 (1-2), 10–17.

Carino, P. (1995). Theorizing the writing center: An uneasy task. Dialogue: A Journal for Writing Specialists, 2 (1): 23–27. Reprinted in Robert W. Barnett and Jacob S. Blumner, eds. The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice New York: Pearson-Longman, 2008. pp. 124-138.

Carino, P. (2003). Power and authority in peer tutoring. In M. A. Pemberton & J. Kinkead (Eds.), Center Will Hold (pp. 96–113). University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46nxnq.9

Caswell, N. I., Grutsch McKinney, J., & Jackson, R. (2016). The working lives of new writing center directors. Utah State University Press.

Coffey, K. M., Gelms, B., Johnson, C. C., & McKee, H. A. (2017). Consulting with collaborative writing teams. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 147–182.

Conrad-Salvo, T., & Spartz, J. M. (2012). Listening to revise: What a study about text-to- speech software taught us about students’ expectations for technology use in the writing center. Writing Center Journal , 32 (2), 40–59.

Corbett, S. J. (2011). Using case study multi-methods to investigate close(r) collaboration: Course-based tutoring and the directive/nondirective instructional continuum. Writing Center Journal , 31 (1), 55–81.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design (5 th ed.). Sage.

Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2005). What do reading tutors do? A naturalistic study of more or less experienced tutors in reading. Discourse Processes, 40 , 83–113.

DeCheck, N. (2010). The power of common interest for motivating writers: A case study. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 28–38.

Dembsey, J. M. (2017). Closing the Grammarly® gaps: A study of claims and feedback from an online grammar program. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 63–100.

Denny, H. C. (2010). Facing the center: Toward an identity politics of one-to-one mentoring . Utah State University Press.

Devet, B. (2015). The writing center and transfer of learning: A primer for directors. Writing Center Journal , 35 (1), 119–151.

Dinitz, S. (2018). Changing peer tutors’ threshold concepts about writing. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, 42 (7-8), 2-9.

Dinitz, S., & Harrington, S. (2014). The role of disciplinary expertise in shaping writing tutorials. Writing Center Journal , 33 (2), 73–98.

Dowse, C., & van Rensburg, W. (2015). “A hundred times we learned from one another” Collaborative learning in an academic writing workshop. South African Journal of Education , 35 (1), 1–12.

Driscoll, D., & Perdue, S. W. (2012). Theory, lore, and more: An analysis of RAD research in The Writing Center Journal , 1980-2009. Writing Center Journal , 32 (2), 11–39.

Ede, L. (1989). Writing as a social process: A theoretical foundation for writing centers? Writing Center Journal , 9 (2), 3–13.

Elder, C. L. (2018). Dear OWL mail: Centering writers’ concerns in online tutor preparation. Writing Center Journal, 36 (2), 147–173.

Fitzgerald, L. (2012). Writing center scholarship: A “Big cross-disciplinary tent.” In K. Ritter & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Exploring composition studies: Sites, issues, and perspectives (pp . 73-88). Utah State University Press.

Fitzgerald, L., & Ianetta, M. (2016). The Oxford guide for writing tutors . Oxford University Press.

Garcia, R. (2017). Unmaking gringo centers. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 29–60.

Geller, A. E., & Denny, H. (2013). Of ladybugs, low status, and loving the job: Writing center professionals navigating their career. The Writing Center Journal , 33 (1), 96–129.

Geller, A. E., Eodice, M., Condon, F., Carroll, M., & Boquet, E. H. (2007). The everyday writing center: A community of practice. Utah State University Press.

Gillespie, P., Gillam, A., Brown, L. F., & Stay, B. (Eds.). (2001). Writing center research: Extending the conversation (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604026

Greenfield, L. & Rowan, K. (2011). Writing centers and the new racism: A call for sustainable dialogue and change. Utah State University Press.

Grutsch McKinney, J. (2009). New media matters: Tutoring in the late age of print. Writing Center Journal , 29 (2), 28–51.

Grutsch McKinney, J. (2013). Peripheral visions for writing centers . Utah State University Press.

Grutsch McKinney, J. (2016). Strategies for writing center research. Parlor Press.

Harris, M. (2010). Making our institutional discourse sticky: Suggestions for effective rhetoric. Writing Center Journal , 30 (2), 47–71.

Hayden, W. (2015). “Gifts” of the archives: A pedagogy for undergraduate research. College Composition and Communication, 66 (3), 402-426. Retrieved December 16, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.utpb.edu/stable/43490936

Hendengren, M., & Lockerd, M. (2017). Tell me what you really think: Lessons from negative student feedback. Writing Center Journal, 36 (1), 131–145.

Hill, H. N. (2016). Tutoring for transfer: The benefits of teaching writing center tutors about transfer theory. The Writing Center Journal , 35 (3), 77–102.

Hill, H. (2020). Transfer theory: A guide to transfer-focused writing center research. In J. Mackiewicz & R. D. Babcock (Eds.), Theories and methods of writing center studies (pp. 59-67) . Routledge.

Hobson, E. H. (1992). Maintaining our balance: Walking the tightrope of competing epistemologies. In R. W. Barnett & J. S. Blumner (Eds.), The Longman guide to writing center theory and practice (pp. 100-109). Pearson.

Horner, W. (1929). The economy of the laboratory method. The English Journal, 18 , 214–221.

Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative & quantitative data. Sage.

Isaacs, E., & Kolba, E. (2009). Mutual benefits: Pre-service teachers and public school students in the writing center. Writing Center Journal , 29 (2), 52–74.

Johanek, C. (2000). Composing research: A contextualist paradigm for rhetoric and composition . Utah State University Press.

Kastner, S. (2017). Soundbites from dialogues with Michael Spooner: A happened, happening, then retrospective on a career publishing, writing, reading, and responding. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 19–29.

Kirsch, G., & Sullivan, P. (1992). Methods and methodology in composition research . Southern Illinois University Press.

Kjesrud, R. D., & Wislocki, M. A. (2011). Learning and leading through conflicted Collaborations. Writing Center Journal , 31 (2), 89–116.

Lassig, C. J., Dillon, L. H., & Diezmann, C. M. (2013). Student or scholar? Transforming identities through a research writing group. Studies in Continuing Education , 35 (3), 299–314.

Lerner, N. (2006). Time warp: Historical representations of writing center directors. In C. Murphy & B. L. Stay (Eds.), The writing center director’s resource book (pp. 3–11). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lerner, N. (2007). “Seeking Knowledge about Writing Centers in Numbers, Talk, and Archives.” Writing at the       Center: Proceedings of the 2004 Thomas R. Watson Conference, Louisville, Kentucky . Ed. Jo Ann Griffin, Carol Mattingly and Michele Eodice. International Writing Centers Association, 2007.

Lerner, N. (2009a). Dissertations and theses on writing centers. Writing Lab Newsletter , 33 (7), 6 9. 

Lerner, N. (2009b). The idea of a writing laboratory . Southern Illinois University Press.

Lerner, N. (2014). The unpromising present of writing center studies: Author and citation patterns in Writing Center Journal , 1980-2009. Writing Center Journal , 34 (1), 67–102.

Lerner, N., & Oddis, K. (2018). The social lives of citations: How and why Writing Center Journal authors cite sources. Writing Center Journal , 36 (2), 235–262.

Liggett, S. (2014). Review essay: Divergent ways of creating knowledge in writing center studies. The Writing Center Journal , 34 (1), 135–151.

Liggett, S., Jordan, K., & Price, S. (2011). Mapping knowledge-making in writing center research: A taxonomy of methodologies. The Writing Center Journal , 31 (2), 50–88.

Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “Deep Theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25 (3), 353–388.

Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the idea of a writing center. Writing Center Journal , 12 (1), 3–11.

Mackiewicz, J., & Babcock, R. (2020). Theories and methods of writing center studies: A practical guide. Routledge.

Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2013). Motivational scaffolding, politeness, and writing center tutoring. The Writing Center Journal, 33 (1), 38–73.

Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2014). Instruction, cognitive scaffolding, and motivational scaffolding in writing center tutoring. Composition Studies , 42 (1), 54–78.

Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2018). Talk about writing: The tutoring strategies of experienced writing center tutors 2 nd Ed. Routledge.

Malenczyk, R. (2013). “I thought I’d put that in to amuse you”: Tutor reports as organizational narrative. Writing Center Journal , 33 (1), 74–95.

McAndrew, D. A., & Reigstad, T. J. (2001). Tutoring writing: A practical guide for conferences. Boynton-Cook.

Miley, M. (2016). Feminist mothering: A theory/practice for writing center administration. Writing Lab Newsletter , 41 (1-2), 17–24.

Miley, M. (2017). Looking up: Mapping writing center work through institutional ethnography. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 103–129.

Miley, M. (2020). Bringing feminist theory home. In J. Mackiewicz & R. D. Babcock (Eds.), Theories and methods of writing center studies (pp. 48-58) . Routledge.

Monty, R. (2015). The writing center as cultural and interdisciplinary contact zone. Palgrave Pivot.

Murphy, C. (1994). The writing center and social constructionist theory. In J. A. Mullin & R. Wallace (Eds.), Intersections: Theory-practice in the writing center (pp. 161-171). NCTE.

Nakamaru, S. (2010). Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and US educated multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing , 19 (2), 95–113.

Nall, S. (2014). Remembering writing center partnerships: Recommendations for archival strategies. Writing Center Journal , 33 (2), 101–121.

Napier, T., Parrott, J. M., Presley, E., & Valley, L. A. (2018). A collaborative, trilateral approach to bridging the information literacy gap in student writing. College & Research Libraries, 79 (1), 120-145. Retrieved from EBSCOhost, doi:10.5860/crl.79.1.120.

Neaderhiser, S., & Wolfe, J. (2009). Between technological endorsement and resistance: The state of online writing centers. The Writing Center Journal , 29 (1), 49–77.

Neuleib, J. W. (1984). Research in the writing center: What to do and where to go to become research oriented. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, 9 (4), 10–13.

Nickaly, J. (2012). Got guilt? Consultant guilt in the writing center community. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 14–27.

Nordlof, J. (2014). Vygotsky, scaffolding, and the role of theory in writing center work. Writing Center Journal , 34 (1), 45–64.

Nordlof, J. (2020). Vygotskyan learning theory. In J. Mackiewicz & R. D. Babcock (Eds.), Theories and methods of writing center studies (pp. 11–19) . Routledge.

North, S. (1987). The making of knowledge in composition: Portrait of an emerging field. Boynton-Cook.

Nowacek, R. S., & Hughes, B. (2015). Threshold concepts in the writing center: Scaffolding the development of tutor expertise. In L. Adler-Kassner & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies (pp. 171-183) . Utah State University Press.

Pantelides, K. (2010). Negotiating what’s at stake in informal writing in the writing center Computers & Composition , 29 (4), 269–279.

Perdue, S. W., & Driscoll, D. (2017). Context matters: Centering writing center administrators’ institutional status and scholarly identity. Writing Center Journal, 36 (1), 185–214.

Perdue, S. W., Driscoll, D., & Petrykowski. A. (2018). Center ing institutional status and scholarly identity: An analysis of writing center administration position announcements, 2004-2014. Writing Center Journ al, 36 (2), 265–293.

Portanova, P., Rifenburg, J. M., & Roen, D. (2017). Contemporary perspectives on cognition and writing . The WAC Clearing House and University Press of Colorado.

Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession , 1991 : 33–40.

Raymond, L., & Quinn, Z. (2012). What a writer wants: Assessing fulfillment of student goals in writing center tutoring sessions. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 64–77.

Ritter, K. (2012). To know her own history: Writing at the woman’s college, 1943-1963 . University of Pittsburgh Press.

Rowan, K. (2009). All the best intentions: Graduate student administrative professional development in practice. Writing Center Journal , 29 (1), 11–48.

Ryan, H., & Kane, D. (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of writing center classroom visits: An evidence-based approach. Writing Center Journal , 34 (2), 145–172.

Salem, L. (2014). Opportunity and transformation: How writing centers are positioned in the political landscape of higher education in the United States. Writing Center Journal , 34 (1), 15–43.

Schreiber, B. R., Lee, E., Johnson, J. T., & Fahim, N. (2021). Linguistic justice on campus : Multilingual Matters.

Scharold, D. (2017). Challenge accepted: Cooperative tutoring as an alternative to one-on-one tutoring. The Writing Center Journal , 36 (2), 31–55.

Severino, C., & Deifell, E. (2011). Empowering L2 tutoring: A case study of a second language writer’s vocabulary learning. Writing Center Journal , 31 (1), 25–54.

Severino, C., & Prim, S. N. (2015). Word choice errors in Chinese students’ English writing and how online writing center tutors respond to them. Writing Center Journal , 34 (2), 115–143. 

Severino, C., Swenson, J., & Zhu, J. (2009). A comparison of online feedback requests by non-native English speaking and native English-speaking writers. Writing Center Journal, 29 (1), 106–129.

Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25 , 389–411.

Smith, F. (1987). Joining the literacy club. Heinemann.

Sunstein, B. S. (1998). Moveable feasts, liminal spaces: Writing centers and the state of in betweenness. Writing Center Journal, 18 (2), 7–26.

Thompson, I. (2009). Scaffolding in the writing center: A microanalysis of an experienced tutor’s verbal and nonverbal tutoring strategies. Written Communication , 26 (4), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309342364

Threadgill, E. (2010). Writing center work bridging boundaries: An interview with Muriel Harris. Journal of Developmental Education , 34 (2), 20–25.

Truesdell, T. (2007). Not Choosing Sides: Using Directive and Non-Directive Methodology in a Writing Session. Writing Lab Newsletter , 31 (6), 7–11.

Valentine, K. (2018). The undercurrents of listening: A qualitative content analysis of listening in writing tutor guidebooks. Writing Center Journal , 36 (2), 89–115.

Valles, S. B., Babcock, R. D., & Jackson, K. K. (2017). Writing center administrators and diversity: A survey . The Peer Review, 1 (1), n.p.

Van Horne, S. (2012). Characterizing successful “intervention” in the writing center conference. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 10 (1), n.p. Retrieved from http://www.praxisuwc.com/van-horn-101 .

Van Waes, L., van Weijen, D., & Leijten, M. (2014). Learning to write in an online writing center: The effect of learning styles on the writing process. Computers & Education, 73 , 60–71.

Weissbach, R. S., & Pflueger, R. C. (2018). Collaborating with writing centers on students. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication , 61 (2), 206–220.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving . Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry , 17 , 89-100. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic862383.files/Wood1976.pdf

Woolbright, M. (1993). The politics of tutoring: Feminism within the patriarchy. Writing Center Journal , 13 (1), 16–31.

Yeats, R., Reddy, P., Wheeler, A., Senior, C., & Murray, J. (2010). What a difference a writing centre makes: A small scale study. Education + Training, 52 (6-7), 499–507.

Zhao, Y. (2018). Student interactions with a native speaker tutor and a nonnative speaker tutor at an American writing center. Writing Center Journal , 36 (2), 57–87.

Home > WCJ

Writing Center Journal

Current issue: volume 42, issue 1 (2024).

Front Matter

Decolonizing Writing Centers: An Introduction Glenn Hutchinson and Andrea Torres Perdigón

Re/Searching (for) Hope: Archives and (Decolonizing) Archival Impressions Romeo Garcia

Reflexiones sobre la construcción de espacios bilingües: los centros de escritura como puentes de diálogo académico en torno a la escritura y a la cultura Andrea Salamanca Mesa and Ana Sofía Ramírez Viancha

Beyond Accommodations: Imagination, Decolonization, and the Cripping of Writing Center Work Karen Moroski-Rigney

Centerless? Making Sense of Disruptions in the Graduate Writing Center Shannon McClellan Brooks

Decolonizing Tutor and Writing Center Administrative Labor: An Autoethnography of a South Asian Writing Center’s Personnel Saurabh Anand

Back Matter

• Journal Home
• About This Journal
• Editorial Board
• Review Guidance
• Announcements & CFPs
• Submit Article
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

ISSN: 2832-9414

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Writing Center Office of Student Success

• Online Resources

Writing Center Research

• Presentations
• Empowering Your Voz Podcast

Quick Links

• Schedule an In-Person Session
• Schedule a Zoom Session
• "Send Your Assignment"

Writing centers are places where learners collaborate, compose, and engage in a variety of meaning-making practices. As such, writing centers are prime locations for research on topics like peer feedback, revision, translanguaging, and, of course, student writing.

Furthermore, every day, Writing Center consultants work with students and assignments from across the disciplines. In fact, our consultants read more assignment descriptions and rubrics than just about anyone at UTRGV! Understanding how students make meaning through writing, and how instructors teach content through their writing assignments are major areas of interest for writing center researchers.

For those of you interested in learning more about writing centers, tutoring, and teaching, there are numerous Writing Center Studies journals where you can start your secondary research:

• The Peer Review
• Praxis: A Writing Center Journal
• WAC Clearinghouse
• The Writing Center Journal
• WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship
• Other rhetoric and composition, English, and education journals

Really want to dig into the scholarship of Writing Center Studies? Here are some of the books that have informed our praxis at the Writing Center:

• Writing Centers and Disability by Rebecca Day Babcock and Sharifa Daniels
• Open-Access, Multimodality, and Writing Center Studies by Elisabeth H. Buck
• Facing the Center: Toward an Identity Politics of One-to-One Mentoring by Harry C. Denny
• The Everyday Writing Center: A Community of Practice by Anne Ellen Geller, Michele Eodice, Frankie Condon, Meg Carroll, & Elizabeth H. Boquet
• Writing Centers and the New Racism: A Call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change edited by Laura Greenfield & Karen Rowan
• Around the Texts of Writing Center Work: An Inquiry-Based Approach to Tutor Education by R. Mark Hall
• Talk About Writing: The Tutoring Strategies of Experienced Writing Center Tutors by Jo Mackiewicz and Isabelle Thompson
• Peripheral Visions for Writing Centers by Jackie Grutsch McKinney
• The Working Lives of New Writing Center Directors by Jackie Grutsch McKinney, Nicole Caswell, and Rebecca Jackson
• The Writing Center as Cultural and Interdisciplinary Contact Zone by Randall W. Monty
• Multilingual Writers and Writing Centers by Ben Rafoth

Beyond areas of writing and communication, writing centers are places where researchers study other issues of contemporary relevance like social justice and institutional critique. If you’re interested in doing primary research in the writing center, please contact the Writing Center at [email protected] .

Writer Center - Contact Us

Brownsville.

BLIBR 3.206 (956) 882-7065

ESTAC 3.119 (956) 665-2538

[email protected]

Follow us at #UTRGVWC

Writing Center on Social Media

Like. follow. subscribe. add..

Princeton Writing Program

The Writing Center

The Writing Center is open for virtual appointments. You may access our scheduling system to view appointment availability and book appointments. We look forward to speaking with you about your writing!

Alumni applying to health professional schools may book up to four appointments to consult with a Writing Center Fellow on their application essays, subject to appointment availability. Alumni may access our scheduling system using their TigerNet credentials.

If you are a non-Princeton student enrolled in a summer program, you may request access to our scheduling system by completing this form .

Learn more about Writing Center appointments and our scheduling system.

Every writer needs a reader, and the Writing Center has a reader for every writer! Trained to respond to writing from a variety of genres and disciplines, Writing Center Fellows offer free, one-on-one conferences about writing at any stage in the process.

Located in New South , the Writing Center welcomes undergraduate and graduate students working on any kind of writing project, as well as postdocs and faculty working on writing related to their research. We regularly see:

• undergraduate students working on essays for classes
• juniors and seniors working on independent research projects
• graduate students working on seminar papers, research or grant proposals, articles, or dissertations
• international students making the transition to U.S. academic writing
• students writing essays for fellowships or for graduate school or job applications
• students crafting oral presentations

Writing Center Fellows can help with any part of the writing process: brainstorming ideas, developing a thesis, structuring an argument, or revising a draft. The goal of each conference is to develop strategies that will encourage students to become astute readers and critics of their own work. Although the Writing Center is not an editing or proofreading service, Fellows can help students identify patterns in their writing related to mechanics and sentence structure.

Writing Center Fellows are there to listen, strategize, suggest, diagnose, and offer advice. They serve as sounding boards, careful readers, and helpful critics, and are able to help draw out ideas and possibilities that are implicit in a student's own thinking and writing. Writing Center conferences complement, but do not replace, the relationships students have with their teachers and advisors.

Writing Center Appointments

To meet with a Writing Center Fellow, make an appointment using one of the links below. Come with whatever you've got—an assignment, ideas, rough notes, or a partial or full draft.

Writing Center Conferences

Open to all undergraduates and graduate students  working on writing of any kind and at any stage in the process.

Bring a prompt to brainstorm, a rough draft of an essay, a cover letter, a grant proposal, a personal statement, a creative piece, or an oral presentation!

Standard Writing Center conferences are 50 minutes in length.

BOOK a WRITING CENTER CONFERENCE

Research Writing Conferences

These appointments are reserved for:

• Undergraduate juniors and seniors working on independent work. Bring ideas for a junior paper, a thesis funding proposal, essays for graduate school applications, or selections from a thesis!
• Graduate students, postdocs, faculty, and staff  working on writing of any kind related to their research. Bring ideas for a seminar paper or conference presentation, a grant or fellowship proposal, a draft of an article, or selections from a dissertation!

To book a Research Writing conference during the summer while we are operating virtually, please use the dropdown menu at the top of our scheduling system to identify Fellows who offer these conferences. Please note that our availability for Research Writing conferences is limited. We only offer 50-minute appointments at this time.

Postdocs, faculty, and staff: Please complete this form to request access to our scheduling system.

BOOK a RESEARCH WRITING CONFERENCe

Have a question or not sure how to proceed? Contact  [email protected] .

Anatomy of a Writing Center Conference

The Writing Center Fellow will likely ask you some  orienting questions  to get things started. Some of these might include:

• What’s the assignment?
• What feedback have you received about your writing in the past?
• How much time can you devote to revision?
• Is there something in particular you’re struggling with?
• What about your writing project excites you?

In collaboration with the Writing Center Fellow, you’ll narrow the scope of what you’ll focus on to  two or three main concerns .

In preparation for  reading your text  together, the Fellow will ask what you want them to pay attention to as they read, where you want them to start, and how much you want them to read.

The initial agenda you set together can be  renegotiated  as the conference continues!

As you and the Fellow read together,  you’ll be involved in the process . The Fellow might ask you to  highlight  areas you have questions about, or perhaps you’ll create a  reverse outline , distilling each paragraph into one main idea.

The Fellow will  honor your preliminary agenda . That said, they may also identify additional areas for discussion as they read.

When the two of you have finished reading, you’ll begin discussing together,  starting with the previously identified issue(s) . You may also  renegotiate your agenda  at this stage.

In 25 minutes, you and the Writing Center Fellow may only be able to work on  two or three kinds of problems  in an essay—motive and thesis, sources and evidence, orienting and structure, etc.

This section of the conference will be interactive!  The Fellow will help identify areas of concern in your writing, but it will be up to you to imagine solutions. Your writing is your own!

It may be productive for you to do some additional  freewriting  at this stage. Feel free to ask for time to do this if it would be helpful!

Planning for revision is an essential component of a successful conference . All writers need more revision than is possible during a single conference!

Together, you and the Writing Center Fellow will make a list of your  next steps for revision and takeaways for future writing projects . This may include advice about longer-term issues that you can work on in your writing moving forward.

Where Is the Writing Center?

The Writing Center is currently operating on a fully virtual basis. All appointments are held over Zoom. After you have booked your appointment, please check your confirmation email for the Zoom link that you will use to meet with a Writing Center Fellow at the start of your appointment. All times listed are in Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-04:00) regardless of your current location.

During the academic year, while classes are in session and during Reading Period, Writing Center conferences take place in person at the Writing Center in  New South . Take the elevator or the stairs to the second floor and enter the door labeled "The Writing Center" (to the left as you exit the stairs or to the right as you exit the elevator). Take a seat in our reception area; you'll know you're in the right place when you see the whiteboard with "Welcome to the Writing Center!" written on it. A Writing Center Fellow will come and find you at the start time of your appointment.

Policies & Frequently Asked Questions

Our approach.

Rather than offer the discipline-based help you can get from your advisers, professors, or preceptors, Writing Center Fellows help you learn to articulate your ideas to a non-specialist reader. In general, the Writing Center does not match you with a Fellow according to your paper topic; no matter what the subject matter, our Fellows serve as sounding boards, careful readers, and helpful critics. However, if you're a junior, senior, or graduate student working on a research project, you may sign up for extended appointments with a Writing Center Fellow in your field or neighboring discipline.

Our scheduling system will display the names of all Writing Center Fellows who are working on a given day, so you will know the name of the Fellow you will be working with in advance. Please note, however, that we reserve the right to swap your appointment with a different Fellow working at the same time if the need arises. We encourage you to make appointments with a variety of Fellows so you can benefit from different perspectives on your writing!

Please bring your assignment prompt and two hard copies of the notes, outline, or draft you would like to work on. It would also be helpful to bring any feedback you’ve received on the project from your professor, preceptor, or adviser, and any key sources that you’re working with. These materials can help a Writing Center Fellow contextualize your project, and may be useful to refer back to during the conference.

The best beginning to a conference is when you, the writer, have reflected on what kind of help you would like. Be sure to read your draft closely before you arrive, and perhaps jot down some notes indicating what you would like to focus on.

Writing Center Fellows do not read papers in advance of your conference. We believe that you will become a better reader and reviser of your own work through the experience of articulating your writing concerns at the beginning of the conference. Your Writing Center Fellow can combine an understanding of those concerns with the perspective of a reader coming fresh to your paper, and then use both to help you think about possibilities for revision. Furthermore, the Writing Center is a popular resource for writers of all levels of experience at Princeton. If Fellows read papers in advance, we wouldn't be able to serve as many people.

The Writing Center Fellow will ask what you would like to work on during the session. The Fellow will also ask to see the assignment prompt and to hear about any feedback you have received on your writing from your professor, preceptor, or adviser. You and the Fellow will then spend 5-15 minutes together reading the parts of the paper that you have both agreed to focus on.

The Writing Center Fellow will discuss your writing with you, which will frequently involve asking you questions about your ideas and getting you to talk through problems arising your writing. If you haven't yet written anything, the Fellow will help you brainstorm and organize ideas. You can expect to take plenty of notes! You will spend the last part of the session developing a plan for further writing and revision.

Learn more about how our conferences are typically structured.

Because our methods for working with writing are highly interactive, you should expect to be able to review no more than 8-12 pages at most in a single 50-minute conference with a Writing Center Fellow. How many pages you will be able to review together during your conference depends on the material you'll be working with and the type of feedback that you are hoping to receive. If you plan to bring a longer paper, we suggest identifying specific sections on which you would like to receive feedback.

Our Policies

Please do not contact individual Fellows regarding their availability for Writing Center appointments. Our Fellows are students too, and it's important to us that we protect their time. Our scheduling system is always up to date with Fellows' current availability for appointments, and new appointment times are added frequently during our busy periods. We recommend that you join our waiting list to be notified when new appointments are added; please check the "Our Scheduling System" section of our FAQs for more information about how to join the waiting list.

It is our policy that all Writing Center appointments must be made, modified, and canceled through our scheduling system.

If you have questions regarding Writing Center appointment availability, please write to the Associate Director for the Writing Center, Benjamin Fancy ( [email protected] ).

Your intake form is used to help the Writing Center Fellow you'll be working with to prepare for your appointment before meeting with you. Since Fellows do not read papers in advance, the information you provide in your intake form gives them an initial sense of what you'd like to work on and a jumping-off point to begin conversation about your writing. It also serves as an opportunity for you to reflect on your writing process and the kind of help you're hoping to receive. Finally, the information you provide helps to ensure that our services are a good fit for the kind of assistance you're looking for; for instance, while Writing Center Fellows can help identify patterns in your writing related to grammar and mechanics, we are unable to offer proofreading or editing services.

If you do not complete your intake form fully, a Writing Program administrative staff member may reach out to ask that you complete your form. If you do not complete your form, your appointment may be canceled. You can return to our scheduling system at any time to update your intake form as needed.

If you find you no longer need an appointment that you've booked, we ask that you cancel as soon as possible, and no later than 5 hours in advance , via our scheduling system; this allows other students the chance to book an appointment at the time you had been holding. Cancelations with less than 5 hours' notice are considered late cancelations; conferences cannot be canceled less than 1 hour before their start time. If you do not cancel at least 1 hour in advance and you do not attend your appointment, this is considered a no-show.

After two late cancelations or two no-shows, your account in our scheduling system is deactivated and you must write to the Associate Director for the Writing Center, Benjamin Fancy ( [email protected] ), if you wish to continue scheduling appointments. If you consistently arrive late to your appointments, your ability to make appointments may also be restricted. The Writing Center is a popular resource, and these policies are in place to help ensure that appointments are available for students who need them.

Our online scheduling system will normally allow you to book a maximum of two conferences each week. During our busiest times, we may temporarily limit you to scheduling one conference per week through our scheduling system. This is to ensure equitable access to appointments during periods in which demand is at its highest.

Our online scheduling system will allow you to book appointments up to two weeks ahead of time.

Writing Center Fellows will not discuss your conference with your instructor or share that you came to the Writing Center.

If you wish to consult with a Writing Center Fellow about a writing assignment that is framed as an exam, you must bring written permission from your instructor to the conference (this includes take-home exams and qualifying exams).

During the academic year—while classes are in session and during Reading Period—Writing Center conferences take place in person in New South; virtual appointments cannot be booked through our online scheduling system during these times and requests are considered on a case-by-case basis.

During breaks and exam periods as well as throughout the summer, Writing Center conferences take place virtually. A Zoom link will be provided in your confirmation email for appointments booked through our scheduling system during these times.

To request a virtual appointment while we are operating on an in-person basis, please write to the Associate Director for the Writing Center, Benjamin Fancy ( [email protected] ) with as much advance notice as possible (ideally 48 hours or more). When requesting a virtual appointment, please provide a list of dates and times when you would be available to meet. Please note that we are unable to accommodate requests to change an appointment that you have already booked on our in-person schedule to a virtual appointment.

Writing Center Fellows cannot meet with students about an assignment that they themselves are also currently working on. While you may certainly conference with a Writing Center Fellow who is taking a class with you, you may not work together on assignments for that class. If you make an appointment with a Fellow who is in the same class as you and is currently working on the same assignment, we will try to swap your appointment with that of another Fellow working at the same time. If we cannot make a swap, then we will need to cancel your appointment and you will need to reschedule for a different time.

While we encourage the practice of taking dictation and recording your own voice as a useful tool for reflection and note-taking, Writing Center conferences may not be recorded.

Please refer to the Generative AI Guidance provided by the McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning. Students wishing to engage with generative AI in Writing Center conferences are responsible for understanding whether and in what contexts the use of generative AI is permitted in their courses, research, and writing process.

Our Scheduling System

You'll be prompted to set up your profile the first time you log on to the system. This information helps us to better serve you and contact you if we have any questions prior to your appointment. You will be prompted periodically to verify that the information in your profile is up to date.

You may update your profile at any time by going to the Welcome menu, then select Profile & Communication Options . 

You can also manage your email options, system preferences, and register for text message notifications from this screen.

• Log on to our scheduling system .
• Search for an appointment using Preferred Appointment Date and Preferred Appointment Time , then click Find Appointments . Perfect matches for your search will be listed if they are available, otherwise you'll see a list of the closest matches. Click Reserve for the appointment you would like to book.
• Please note that at least one full hour must be available in order to book an appointment. Verify this using the dropdown for the end time of your appointment.
• Be sure to tell us about the assignment or project you're working on, then click Create Appointment to book your appointment.

Your appointment will be confirmed by email shortly after booking. Be sure to make a note of your appointment in your personal calendar!

• Search for an appointment using Preferred Appointment Date and  Preferred Appointment Time . Use Limit to  to narrow down your search by all 80-minute conferences or Fellows in a specific discipline, then click  Find Appointments . Perfect matches for your search will be listed if they are available, otherwise you'll see a list of the closest matches. Click Reserve for the appointment you would like to book.
• Please note that at least one and a half hours must be available in order to book an 80-minute appointment. Verify this using the dropdown for the end time of your appointment.
• Go to the  My Appointments menu and choose the appointment you would like to cancel.
• Select Cancel Appointment .

In Standard Display  mode:

• Search for an appointment using  Preferred Appointment Date  and  Preferred Appointment Time , then click  Find Appointments . If you're unable to find an appointment that fits your schedule on this day, select the  Waiting List  button.
• Select  Join Waiting List  to be notified of any openings for that day. You may also limit the notification based on your desired appointment time.

In  Calendar Display  mode:

• Navigate to the day on which you'd like to schedule an appointment. If you're unable to find an appointment that fits your schedule on this day, click the Waiting List link below that day's appointments.

If an appointment becomes available, you'll be alerted by email or text message depending on your notification preferences. Appointments that open are available on a first come, first served basis, so be sure to act quickly to book your appointment.

Visit the tutor blog for writing advice from our staff

Hero Pagination

Watch the videos from the 2024 3-minute thesis competition, strategies for essay writing handouts.

Each handout focuses on a different aspect of the writing process.

We're hiring!

Current undergraduates are eligible to apply to work as peer tutors at the Writing Center.  

Schedule an Appointment

English grammar and language tutor, drop-in hours, harvard guide to using sources, departmental writing fellows, writing advice: the harvard writing tutor blog.

Students are welcome to book appointments at any stage of the writing process.

Undergraduates at Harvard College can visit the Writing Center for help with any writing assignment, fellowship application, or graduate school admissions essay.

Writing Resources

Guides for writing essays and papers

Meet the Staff

Writing Center staff listing

Contact / Employment

Reach out to us with questions and inquire about employment opportunities

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Writing Center

Research from the writing center.

The Writing Center, like UConn, is committed to critical inquiry and research. It is part of what we do and who we are; it complements and energizes how we tutor, promote writing across the disciplines, and serve both UConn and the State of Connecticut.

This scholarship takes several forms—books, articles, reviews, conference presentations—and involves undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty.

Below is a list of selected presentations and publications by Writing Center staff during the last several years. Much of this work is directly related to writing center theory and practice. For example, many UConn tutors have presented papers at the peer-reviewed Northeast Writing Centers Conference in recent years. Some scholarship listed is not directly related to writing center practices but instead reveals the varied intellectual interests of our staff.

Undergraduate Research

Basile, Richard A. “Intellectual Self Defense: Academe and the Martial Arts.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2009 Conference, Hartford, CT. April 2009.

Basile, Richard A. “The Collaborative Struggle: Being Controlled by Collaboration.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2008 Conference. Burlington, VT, April 2008.

Bottelsen, Alexandria.  “Writing Centers are Great, Just Not for My Students: The Dilemma of High School Writing Centers.”  Northeast Writing Centers Association 2016 Conference.  Keene State College, Keene, NH.  April 2016.

Bottelsen, Alexandria and Luke LaRosa. “After the Branding: Student Created Perceptions of University Writing Centers.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2015 Conference. Centenary College, Hackettstown, NJ. April 2015.

Briganti, Christine and Matthew Fuller. “Building and Rebuilding the Writer/Tutor Relationship: Investigating the Implications of Learning Styles.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2012 Conference. St. John’s University, Queens, NY. April 2012.

Bugdal, Melissa, Nellie Binder and Kyle Piscioniere.  “Translating Practices: Integrating Writing Center Tutor Training into First-Year Writing.”  10 th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Writing.  The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.  March 2015.

Bugdal, Melissa, Syeda Haider, Ricky Holtz, Michael Mei and Karen Ren. “Speaking Up: The Development of Voice of First Generation College Writers.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2014 Conference. Bryant University, Smithfield, RI. March 2014.

Bukowski, Noah. “On the Margin of the Margin: Embodying Physical Disability in the Writing Center as a Writing Tutor and Teaching Fellow.” Northeast Writing Centers Association Conference, April 2017.

Bukowski, Noah.  “The Disabled Body in the Public Sphere of the Writing Center.”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2016 Conference.  Keene State College, Keene, NH.  April 2016.

“Cella, Laurie, Tess Bird, Kellan Chatelain, Dajemie Rodrigues, Gabrielle Wilmont and Anna Vu. “Getting the (Creative) Word Out: Creating Connections with Creative Writers in Writing Centers at the University and High School Level.” Northeast Writing Center Association Annual Conference, Amherst, New Hampshire, April 2006.

Cullen, Jessica. “Thriving Transplants: High School Tutors and Their Transition to College.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2011 Conference, Manchester, NH. March 2011.

Gohel, Vishal and Thomas Teixeira. “Practical Approaches to Tutoring Philosophies.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2012 Conference. St. John’s University, Queens, NY. April 2012.

Johnkennedy, Rofina, Luke LaRosa, Sindhu Mannava, Yasemin Saplakoglu, and Nathan Wojtyna.  “Writing with the Disciplines: How Fellows Draw on Ways of Knowing from their Majors to First-Year Composition Discussion Sessions.”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2016 Conference.  Keene State College, Keene, NH.  April 2016.

Johnson, Dan, Joseph Greenwald, and Kaylee Thurlow.  “Cracking the Code: A Method for Designing and Implementing a Writing Center Honor Code.”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2018 Conference.  The College of Holy Cross, Worcester, MA.  April 2018.

Kane, Odia and Kharl Reynado.  “Assessing Our Practice:  A Writing Center  Fellow-to-Fellow Support System.”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2018 Conference.  The College of Holy Cross, Worcester, MA.  April 2018.

Koo, Jennifer. “Understanding Dyslexic Students’ Perspectives of the Writing Center. ”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2019 Conference.  Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT.  March 2019.

Lapides, Anneliese, Gabe Morrison and Kathleen Tonry. “Reassessing Our Responses to the Everyday Language of Oppression.”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2018 Conference.  The College of Holy Cross, Worcester, MA.  April 2018.

Morris, Faithlynn, John Beck, Ashantee Hyman, Ricky Von Holtz and Sarah Wylie. “Tutors Talk: Reflections of First-Year Writing.” 7th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Writing. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. April 2012.

Praver, Noah, Alexander Solod, and Thomas Deans.  “Don’t Fear the Future: How Should Writing Centers Respond to Artificial Intelligence/Text Generation Tools?” Northeast Writing Centers Association Annual Conference, UNH, 2023.

Rice, Sierra, Thomas Deans and Christopher Iverson.  “Why and How You Should Host a Secondary School Writing Center Conference.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2018 Conference.  The College of Holy Cross, Worcester, MA.  April 2018.

Rinaldo, Mary, Jackie Allard, Katrina Bafumi, Melissa Elmore, Andrew Garibay, Megan McHugh, Dimpi Parikh and Joseph Tarantino. “Sustainability: Outreach Writing Projects in the Margins or the Mainstream?” Northeast Writing Centers Association Annual Conference, Storrs, CT, March 2007.

Scott, Garon. “Forced Bulbs: Online Discussion Forums.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2011 Conference, Manchester, NH. March 2011.

Udler, Eli. Poster: “Large-Scale Analysis of Tutor Note Data.”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2019 Conference.  Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT.  March 2019.

Graduate Student Research

Bafumi, Katrina and Mary Isbell. Panel Discussion: “Writing Project Practices in Training Writing Center Tutors and Designing Centers.” Writing Centers Session. National Writing Project Annual Meeting. San Antonio, TX, November 20-22, 2008.

Bertekap, Sarah. “Centering Writing.” International Writing Centers Association Annual Conference, Vancouver, October 2022.

Bottelsen, Alexandria. “Image is Everything: The Data Behind Impressions and Perceptions.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship 43.5-6 (January 2019): 25-28.

Brown, Shan-Estelle. “Addressing Everyday Prejudices in Student Writing” Presentation for the Panel “PC and Prejudice: Negotiating Politics and Correctness in the Composition Classroom” at the University of Connecticut Freshman English Conference on the Teaching of Writing, University of Connecticut, March 27, 2009.

Brown, Shan-Estelle . “Integrative Medicine: The Whole Holistic Package.” Paper presented at the Society for Applied Anthropology/Society for Medical Anthropology Annual Meeting, March 26, 2008.

Brown, Shan-Estelle. “Authority and Writing in the Discipline: An Anthropologist’s Viewpoint.” Writing Lab Newsletter March 33:7 (2009): 14-15.

Brown, Shan-Estelle and Mandy Suhr-Sytsma. Poster: “Check Your Mirrors: Racial and Class Bias, Ethnocentrism, and Sexism in Undergraduate Student Writing.” International Writing Centers Association/National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada. October 29 – November 1, 2008.

Brown, Shan-Estelle and Molly Doub. “Annuals and Perennials: Working with Returning Writers. “Northeast Writing Center Association 2011 Conference, Manchester, NH. March 2011.

Bugdal, Melissa,  Kristina Reardon, and Thomas Deans. “Summing Up the Session: A Study of Student, Faculty, and Tutor Attitudes Toward Tutor Notes.” Writing Center Journal 35.3 (Fall 2016): 17-39.

Bugdal, Melissa, Tom Deans, and Kristina Reardon.  “Tutor Notes/Session Reports: A Study of Different Models and Their Effects on Stakeholders.”  International Writing Centers Association Collaborative.  Tampa, FL.  March 2015.

Bugdal, Melissa and Ricky Holtz. “When Writing Fellows Become Reading Fellows: Creative Strategies for Critical Reading and Writing in a Course-based Tutoring Program.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, Volume 12.1 (2014).   http://www.praxisuwc.com/bugdal-holtz-121

Czajka, Kaylee, and Garzi, Caitlin. “Training High School and Middle School Tutors: Deconstructing the Writing Center tutor Training Process.” The Northeast Writing Center Association Conference, Boston University, April 10, 2010.

Doub, Molly. “The Rhetorical is Ideological: Discipline Specific Approaches in the Writing Center.” The Northeast Writing Center Association Conference, Boston University, April 10, 2010.

Dunn-Lewis, Courtenay. “Web Statistics and the Effectiveness of Your Online Image.” The Northeast Writing Center Association Conference, Boston University, April 10, 2010.

Fraser, Gordon. “‘Is This Any Good?’: Reconciling Competing Visions of Writing Among First-Year Writers and Writing Center Staff.” The Northeast Writing Center Association Conference, Boston University, April 10, 2010.

Fraser, Gordon. “Finding a Voice: Reconciling Competing Discourses in Student Work.” The WAC Journal 20 (2009): 63-74. http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol20/fraser.pdf

Fraser, Gordon. “‘To be indifferent and to be young’: Disraeli, Sybil, and the Preservation of an American ‘Race,’ 1879-1912.” Victorian Literature and Culture (accepted for publication, forthcoming)

Fraser, Gordon. “Serial Monogamy.” Long River Review 11 (2009): 102-5.

Fraser, Gordon. “Woman/Man and Man/God: Hierarchy and Male Sexual Identity in Puritan New England.” Interdisciplinary Conference on “Bodies in Motion” at University of Rhode Island, 28 March 2009.

Fraser, Gordon. “Writing Gender/Writing Politics: Reconciling Competing Discourses in Student Work.” Fourth Annual Conference on the Teaching of Writing at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, 27 March 2009.

Henderson, Brooke, Lauren Eichenbaum and Brigid O’Donnell. “Researching Out to the Sciences: how Can the Writing Center Extend to the Science Community?” Northeast Writing Centers Association Annual Conference, Storrs, CT, March 2007.

Isbell, Mary, Jason Courtmanche, Dimpi Parikh and Lydia Smith. “The UConn Writing Center and the Connecticut Writing Project: Partnership Possibilities for Outreach.” New England Writing Center Association Annual Conference, Burlington, VT, April 2008.

Isbell, Mary. “P(l)aying Off the Old Wagon: Amateur Theatricals in White-Jacket.” New England Modern Language Association Annual Conference, Buffalo, NY, April 11, 2008.

Isbell, Mary. “Beyond the Stage as Metaphor: Embedded Representation in Sister Carrie and Susan Lenox.” American Literature Association Annual Conference, Boston, MA, May 22, 2009.

Iverson, Christoper, Thomas Deans and Sierra Rice.  “Why and How You Should Host a Secondary School Writing Center Conference.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2018 Conference.  The College of Holy Cross, Worcester, MA.  April 2018.

Iwata, Miho, Thomas Deans, Jerry Jalette and Kristina Reardon. “Writing Support Across the Graduate Curriculum: Lessons from Year One of a Writing Center’s Efforts.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2013 Conference, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. April 2013.

Lawrence, Patrick, Molly Tetrault, and Thomas Deans. “Intake and Orientation: The Role of Initial Writing Center Consultations with Graduate Students.”   Re/Writing the Center: Pedagogies, Practices, and Partnerships to Support Graduate Students in the Writing Center . Eds. Susan Lawrence and Terry Myers Zawacki. Utah State University Press, 2017.

Maloney-Mangold, Michelle. “From Teacher to Tutor: Exploring the Challenges of Being a Graduate Student Tutor in the Writing Center.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2013 Conference, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. April 2013.

Morrison, Gabe, Anneliese Lapides and Kathleen Tonry. “Reassessing Our Responses to the Everyday Language of Oppression.”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2018 Conference.  The College of Holy Cross, Worcester, MA.  April 2018.

Petroj, Vanessa.  “Working with Multilingual Writers at the Sentence Level.”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2016 Conference.  Keene State College, Keene, NH.  April 2016.

Pipkin, Alisande, Thomas Deans and Mandy Suhr-Sytsma. Review of Anne Beaufort, College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction in WPA: Writing Program Administration 31:3 (spring 2008): 110-115.

Reardon, Kristina, Thomas Deans, and Cheryl Maykel “Finding a Room of Their Own: Programming Time and Space for Graduate Student Writing.”   WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship 40:5-6 (Jan/Feb 2016): 10-17.

Reardon, Kristina, Melissa Bugdal, and Tom Deans.  “Designing Studies and Coding Data: Methods for Working with Archives.”  International Writing Centers Association Collaborative.  Houston, TX.  April 2016.

Reardon, Kristina, Nellie Binder, Jorge Santos and Jelena Runic. “Mediating Diverse Voices: The Role of Writing Centers in Personal Statement Drafting for ELL.” New England Writing Center Association 2014 Conference, Bryant University, Smithfield, RI. March 2014.

Reeds, Eleanor. “Graduate Students and the Labor of Writing: Supporting Emerging Professionals at the UConn Writing Center.” Northeast Writing Centers Association Conference, April 2017

Reynolds, J.A.  “Understanding predictors of help-seeking behaviors among tutors.”  A paper presented at the Northeast Writing Centers Association (NEWCA), Danbury, CT. March 2019.

Rich, Jason, Thomas Deans, Aaron Schultz and Nicholas Shunda. “Tutors, Researchers, and Emissaries: Experimenting with Roles For Writing Center Graduate Students in Sparking and Sustaining WAC and WID.” Northeast Writing Center Association Annual Conference, Storrs, CT, March 2007.

Rowe, Asia and Jorge Santos. “Identifying L2 Students: The Politics of Disclosure.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2012 Conference. St. John’s University, Queens, NY. April 2012.

Rowe, Asia. “John Skelton’s Proverbial Negotiations.” Seventh Annual Conference of the Early Modern Interdisciplinary Group of the City University of New York Graduate Center, New York, NY, April 2011.

Rowe, Asia. “The Role of Writing Centers in Deepening Self-Reflection.” Sixth Annual Conference on the Teaching of Writing at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, March 2011. Rowe, Asia. “The Erasmian Adage in the Controversy with Luther.” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 30 (2010): 41-55.

Runic, Jelena. “The Inclusion of the Interdependent Self in Academic Writing.” Northeast Writing Center Association 2014 Conference, Bryant University, Smithfield, RI. March 2014.

Suhr-Sytsma, Mandy and Shan-Estelle Brown. “Addressing the Everyday Language of Everyday Oppression in the Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal 31.2 (2011): 13-48. ***Winner of the 2012 Award for Graduate Writing in WPA Studies from the Council of Writing Program Administrators*** Suhr-Sytsma, Mandy. “Challenging Inequitable Relations: The Composition of Antiracism and Indigenous Self-Determination in Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Atlanta. 9 April 2011.

Suhr-Sytsma, Mandy. “Bottom-Up Collaborations between Writing Centers and First Year Composition.” Council of Writing Program Administrators Conference. Sheraton Society Hill, Philadelphia. 17 July 2010.

Suhr-Sytsma, Mandy. “Real Texts: Reading and Writing across the Disciplines.” Edited by Elizabeth Vander Lei and Dean Ward. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. Contributed to textbook apparatus and assignments.

Wenz, Christopher and Kathryn Warrender. “Measuring Motivation in Writing Center Research.”  Northeast Writing Center Association 2018 Conference.  The College of Holy Cross, Worcester, MA.  April 2018.

Zagreb, Robert.  “I’m So Sorry, English Is Not My First Language”   Another Word blog, University of  Wisconsin Writing Center, March 2023.

Faculty & Staff Research

Bugingo, Margaret. Writing Around the Globe: English Language Writing Centers in Rwanda. Connecting Writing Centers Across Borders/A WLN Blog. 20 September 2022

Bugingo, Margaret, Robert Zagreb, Lizzy Irizarry, and Eunice Kim. “Multiculturalism and Multilingualism in Writing Centers.” Northeast Writing Centers Association Annual Conference, UNH, 2023.

Deans, Thomas, and Kathleen Tonry. “University of Connecticut Writing Center.” Writing Program Architecture: Thirty Cases for Reference and Research . Eds. Bryna Siegel Finer and Jamie White-Farnham. Utah State University Press, 2017.

Deans, Thomas. Series Editor, with Mya Poe, of Brief Guides to Writing in the Disciplines. Oxford University Press.  https://global.oup.com/academic/content/series/s/brief-guides-to-writing-in-the-disciplines-sgwd/?cc=us&lang=en&

Deans, Thomas. Review of Ann Duin Hill and Isabel Pedersen, Writing Futures: Collaborative, Algorithmic, Autonomous in Composition Studies 51:1 (Spring 2023): 196-98.

Deans, Thomas. “What Can We Learn about Writing in the Disciplines from Exceptionally High-Achieving STEM Majors?” Special Issue “ STEM and WAC/WID: Co-Navigating Our Shifting Currents,” Guest editors   Erin Beaver, Brian Hendrickson & Justin Nicholes. Across the Disciplines 19.1-2 (2022): 160-174. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/volume19/deans.pdf

Deans, Thomas. “Strategies—Especially Artificial Intelligence—for Supporting Neurodiverse STEM Graduate Writers.” International Writing Centers Association Annual Conference, Vancouver, October 2022.

Deans, Thomas. “What Robert Mueller’s Writing Style Tells Us About His Larger Legal Gambit.” Slate. 3 Jan 2019. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/robert-mueller-report-writing-style-special-counsel-documents.html

Deans, Thomas.  “1-Credit Writing-Intensive Courses in the Disciplines: Results from a Study of Outcomes in Four Disciplines.” Across the Disciplines 14:1 (March 2017). http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/deans2017.cfm

Deans, Thomas. “The Rhetoric of Jesus Writing in the Story of the Woman Accused of Adultery (John 7.53-8.11) .” College Composition and Communication 65.3 (Feb 2014): 406-429. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43491482#metadata_info_tab_contents

Deans, Thomas, Barbara Roswell, and Adrian Wurr, Eds. Writing and Community Engagement: A Critical Sourcebook . Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2010.

Deans, Thomas. “Talking During the Test” (essay co-authored with Jamie Frueh). I nside Higher Ed. Views section. 2 April 2010. Online. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/04/02/deans

Deans, Thomas. “Managing the Freshman Year: Review of My Freshman Year and The First Year Out.” College Composition and Communication 61:2 (Dec 2009).

Deans, Thomas.“Richard Rorty’s Social Hope and Community Literacy.”  Community Literacy Journal 3.2 (spring 2009): 3-18.

Deans, Thomas. “Shifting Locations, Genres, and Motives: An Activity Theory Analysis of Service-Learning Writing Pedagogies.” The Locations of Composition . Eds. Christopher Keller and Christian Weisser. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2007. 289-306.

Deans, Thomas. “Genre Analysis and the Community Writing Course.” Reflections 5:1&2 (2006): 7-25.

Deans, Thomas. “Writing, Revision and Agency in Hamlet.” Exemplaria: A Journal of Theory in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 15.1 (spring 2003): 223-243.

Deans, Thomas. Writing and Community Action: A Service-Learning Rhetoric and Reader . NY: Longman, 2003.

Deans, Thomas. Writing Partnerships: Service-Learning in Composition . Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English Press, 2000.

Tonry, Kathleen. Form and Reform: Reading Across the Fifteenth Century . Edited by Kathleen Tonry and Shannon Gayk. Forthcoming Spring 2011 from Ohio State University Press.

Tonry, Kathleen. “Reading the Polychronicon from Manuscript to Print.” Invited speaker, English Medieval Colloquium, Harvard University. February 26, 2009.

Tonry, Kathleen. “Reproducing Print’s Histories.” Invited speaker, History of the Book Seminar, University of Cambridge. November 20, 2008.

Tonry, Kathleen. “Metaphor and the Ages of Print.” Invited speaker, Medieval and Renaissance Studies Colloquium, Yale University. October 23, 2008.

Tonry, Kathleen. “The Redynge of Histories’: Caxton’s Polychronicon,” New Chaucer Society Conference. Swansea, UK, July 2008.

Tonry, Kathleen. “Skelton and the New Fifteenth Century,” Literature Compass 5 (2008): 721-39.

Tonry, Kathleen. “Before Reform: Langland and Skelton at the End of the Middle Ages.” 4th International Piers Plowman Conference. University of Pennsylvania, May 2007.

Tonry, Kathleen. “Fynyshyng’ Caxton’s Books.” 42nd International Congress on Medieval Studies. Kalamazoo, MI, May 2007.

Tonry, Kathleen. “Caxton’s Golden Legend: The Translation of Saints into Early Print.” 41st International Congress on Medieval Studies. Kalamazoo, MI, May 2006.

Tonry, Kathleen. “Split Positions and Split Histories: A Medievalist in the Writing Center.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Chicago, March 2006.

Tonry, Kathleen. Review of Laura Hodges, Chaucer and Clothing: Clerical and Academic Costume in the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, in The Medieval Review, (April 2006). Online. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=tmr;cc=tmr;q1=tonry;rgn=main;view=text;idno=baj9928.0608.011

Artificial Intelligence

College writing centers worry ai could replace them, those who run the centers argue that they could be a hub for teaching ai literacy., by maggie hicks     aug 12, 2024.

Angelina Litvin / Unsplash

This article is part of the collection: Artificial Intelligence Holds Promise for Education — and Creates Problems.

Writing centers on college campuses have been around for more than 100 years , and they’re both a resource for students doing assignments and a symbol of the importance in higher education of learning to express yourself in text.

But as generative AI tools like ChatGPT sweep into mainstream business tools, promising to draft properly-formatted text from simple prompts and the click of a button, new questions are rising about what role writing centers should play — or whether they will be needed in the future.

Many writing centers are already jumping in to experiment with new AI tools, making the case both for the continued importance of writing instruction and for their place on campus as a hub for teaching AI literacy.

“I see this as a real opportunity for writing centers to show leadership if they're given an opportunity,” says Sherry Wynn Perdue, president of the International Writing Centers Association. “It's an important moment, and our role as leaders is to help provide resources for our colleagues so that we can be leaders in the conversation about generative AI.”

Some writing instructors worry, though, that the new tools may tempt colleges to rely too heavily on the technology or even eliminate writing centers entirely. Writing centers are often run by non-tenured staff, which can make them especially vulnerable, says Genie N. Giaimo, director of Middlebury University's writing center and an assistant professor of writing and rhetoric there. And in the past, administrators at some colleges have replaced their services with all-encompassing tutoring centers or third party organizations, Wynn Perdue adds.

And even some professors with doctoral degrees in English are wondering whether colleges need to do as much these days to teach the skill of writing in light of new AI tools. “Why do we need a required writing course if AI can do everything outside stakeholders want such a course to teach?,” asked Melissa Nicolas, a professor of English at Washington State University, in an op-ed last year.

So where does AI leave the writing center?

Finding a Balance

Writing centers need to find a balance between introducing AI into the writing process and keeping the human support that every writer needs, argues Anna Mills, an English instructor at the College of Marin.

AI can serve as a supplement to a human tutor, Mills says. She encourages her students to use MyEssayFeedback, an AI tool that critiques the organization of an essay, the quality of evidence a student has included to support their thesis or the tone of the writing. Such tools can also evaluate research questions or review a student's writing based on the rubric for the assignment, she says.

By modeling these uses of AI, Mills says, writing centers can increase students’ understanding of the technology and ease their worries about using it inappropriately. Many students arrive at college concerned that they’ll be accused of cheating if they use AI for anything, she says. For instance, many have seen the video on TikTok of a student who says she was given an F on a paper for using a grammar checker that set off an AI detection system her professors used. Providing guidance can help students feel more comfortable with the technology, she says. And understanding that AI’s suggestions can be wrong also boosts student confidence in their own abilities.

“The student could say, once they get the feedback, ‘No, that's not really what I want to do. Could you help me think about how to expand this other part of it?’” Mills says. “That's something that I think we need to be cultivating — that kind of confidence and willingness to engage and push back — because that is how you get the most out of AI.”

Still, Mills requires her students to go to the writing center at least four times during the semester. Human interaction is essential to the writing process, she argues. Often the tutors energize students and show a genuine interest in what they are writing, something they can’t get from any chatbot, Mills says.

“Writing doesn’t have that much meaning without a human audience,” Mills says. “Meeting with someone as you are developing your ideas is often the place where you feel that there’s the most meaning in what you’re doing.”

Writing centers can play a pivotal role in retention for a college, says Giaimo. The resources can be especially important for students who historically haven’t gotten as much support from colleges, such as first-generation students and those from marginalized communities, she adds. And working with a tutor could be the first one-on-one teaching interaction a student has at college, which is vital, especially for students coming out of the pandemic.

Even as the use of AI tools grows in the business world, students still need to learn how to write and organize their ideas, Giaimo says. And without proper guidance, students can end up leaning too heavily on tools like ChatGPT without ever picking up the underlying skills to put their own thoughts down on paper.

“We forget that most people who are in these processes, at least in higher education, they're just kind of starting out or learning,” Giaimo says. “The process part is important, and actually maybe even more important than what the final end product looks like.”

Promoting AI Literacy

Writing center tutors play an essential role in helping students understand how to use AI appropriately, says Sarah Z. Johnson, director of Madison College’s writing center. Many writing centers these days train tutors in AI literacy, which the tutors can then pass down to the students they work with as the opportunity arises.

Johnson and her team train their tutors to teach students about how AI can be useful in the writing process. For instance, if a student is struggling to organize an essay, a tutor might ask the student to paste their draft into a chatbot and ask it to create an outline for them, Johnson says. The student can see where a paragraph or sentence may work better in the paper and save time during the tutoring session, she says.

This year, tutors will also learn a list of AI literacies, such as how large language models work, issues with generative AI, such as their cultural biases, or how to write prompts that can help organize information, Johnson says.

At Middlebury, tutors are also trained to navigate AI policies, which can differ among instructors, Giaimo says. Tutors also learn to speak with students who they find have used AI inappropriately — say, by having a chatbot do too much of an assignment without attribution — and guide them in a more productive direction.

In that way, Johnson says, tutors can help writers think through the “implications” of using AI, so they can make their own decisions about questions like “Does this final product represent me? Does it represent my voice? Does it represent what I want to say?”

The most important thing, says Johsnon, is “realizing that gen AI is a tool, but you have to know how to use it rather than it using you.”

Writing centers often have relationships with departments across campus, which makes them an excellent place to promote AI literacy, Johnson says. Students may be coming with an assignment from an engineering class or a social sciences class, she says, which means writing center staff can build connections with colleagues across the college.

To prevent colleges from replacing writing centers with AI, directors and staff need to be proactive and advocate for the role they play in promoting AI literacy, she says. Johnson and Wynn Perdue helped craft a list of AI literacies that will be released later this year by a joint task force between the Modern Language Association and the Conference on College Composition and Communication. The IWCA also has its own generative AI taskforce, which Johnson and Wynn Perdue both sit on, that plans to create additional resources to help writing centers adjust and train their staff.

“Gen AI is not something that we're scared of, but it is something that absolutely needs to have parameters,” Johnson says. “If we're not helping students figure out what those parameters are through tutors and things like that, I just don't know how it's going to happen.”

Maggie Hicks is a freelance education reporter covering student life, mental health and other topics in higher education.

Artificial Intelligence Holds Promise for Education — and Creates Problems

Should Educators Put Disclosures on Teaching Materials When They Use AI?

By jeffrey r. young.

An Education Chatbot Company Collapsed. Where Did the Student Data Go?

As More AI Tools Emerge in Education, so Does Concern Among Teachers About Being Replaced

EdSurge Podcast

Should chatbots tutor dissecting that viral ai demo with sal khan and his son, more from edsurge.

Education Workforce

This school counselor says her job is heavy, but it’s also ‘soul building’, by emily tate sullivan.

Education Research

People are hunting for education ‘fads.’ what does that say about schools, by daniel mollenkamp.

Teacher Preparation

What motivates teachers to enter the profession, by andrew kwok.

Journalism that ignites your curiosity about education.

EdSurge is an editorially independent project of and

• Product Index
• Write for us
• Advertising

FOLLOW EDSURGE

© 2024 All Rights Reserved

Visit the Health Advisories website for the latest vaccination and mask information and to Report a Case.

Writing Center

The professional staff at the Writing Center are engaged in on-going research projects, and our tutors and student coordinators also have the opportunity to participate in research, often leading to conference presentations.

Selected Publications

Writing Center Director, Michelle Hager, and former Coordinator of Digital Initiatives, Maria Judnick, worked with Dr. Julia Bleakney from Elon University on a comprehensive study about blogging in writing centers . Their work was published in Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 25(2) in early 2021. 

Our Coordinator of Multilingual Writing Support Services, Amy Russo, published her piece about the language used in online dating profiles in the peer-reviewed journal Language@Internet 17 (article 1). 

Our former Coordinator of Digital Initiatives, Maria Judnick, worked with former tutor Jenn Hambly to write an article about the growth of the SJSU Writing Center for the Northern California Writing Centers Association (NCWCA) Newsletter . This article developed from a conference presentation.

Former writing tutor Ariel Andrew published her piece about tutor identity: "Who Do We Think We Are, Anyway?: Writing Tutor Identity Formation Through Storytelling." The article is available in the spring 2018 edition of The Peer Review 2(1).

Selected Conference Presentations

This section highlights some of our Writing Center staff members' conference presentations. (Presentations are in chronological order, starting with the most recent first.) 

Russo, A. (October 2019) "Where Does Plagiarism Stop and Paraphrasing Begin: A Practical Strategy." CATESOL Conference . San Jose, CA. 

Hager, M. and Judnick, M. (July 2019) “The Write Attitude! Creating Blog Posts as Digital Resources for Students…And Celebrities!” Cal State Tech Conference . San Diego, CA. 

Russo, A. (April 2019) "Bitmoji App + Language Learning." National Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Conference . Atlanta, GA.

Hager, M. and Judnick, M. (March 2019) "Performing Writing Support Across Campus: A Comparative Empirical Study of Writing Fellows in First Year Composition and Advanced, Discipline-Specific Writing Courses.” Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) . Pittsburgh, PA.

Russo, A. (March 2019) "Helping Multilingual Writers: Transfer and Common Error Guides Training." [Pre-conference Training Workshop]. Northern California Writing Center Association (NCWCA) Conference . San Jose, CA.

Abdelhadi, A., Galindo, A., and Judnick, M. (March 2019) "How Social Media Can Enhance Your Writing Center." Northern California Writing Center Association (NCWCA) Conference. San Jose, CA.

Arceneaux, K. and Cantero, C. (December 2018) "Staying Motivated through Self-Regulation Strategies." CATESOL Conference . Anaheim, CA. 

Hager, M. and Russo, A. (November 2018) "Writing Like a Reader: Cohesion and Self-Editing Process." Foreign Language Education Symposium (FLEDS) . Monterey, CA.

Hager, M. (March 2018) “Transforming Writing Support: An Empirical Study of Writing Fellows in Advanced, Discipline-Specific Writing Courses.” Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) . Kansas City, MO. 

Andrews, A., Blankenship, B., Hambly, J., and Judnick, M. (March 2018) "Movin' on Up: Assessing Challenges and Opportunities during Major Growth at the SJSU Writing Center." Northern California Writing Center Association (NCWCA) Conference . Santa Clara, CA.

Hager, M., Judnick, M., and Krane, D. (June 2017) “Writing Centers as Unofficial Creative Spaces.” [Workshop] Conference on College Composition and Communication Summer Regional Conference . San José, CA.

Hager, M. (March 2017) "Let's Talk About Ideas: How Students in First Year Writing Courses Use Writing Fellows." Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) . Portland, OR. 

Hager, M. (April 2016) “Writing Centers and Writing Fellows: Forging Complementary Paths for Writing Support Services.” Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) . Houston, TX.

Odegaard Writing & Research Center

Virtual appointments available now

The mission of the Odegaard Writing and Research Center is to support the long-term development of writers and researchers across UW—undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and staff—through high-quality, conversation-based peer learning.

In so doing, we aim to support writers and researchers as they situate their work within more visible and useful inquiry processes that can then be extended to other contexts and purposes, both within and beyond the University, in order to facilitate learning throughout their lives.

Please read our policies before making an appointment.

Check it out

Open Writing Circles

• UW Libraries Search
• Your Library Account

Odegaard Writing and Research Center (OWRC)

Odegaard writing & research center.

The Odegaard Writing & Research Center is open to all members of the University of Washington community. Schedule an appointment online to reserve your time.

The Research Help staff provide guidance with all stages of the research process, including defining a research question, exploring background information, narrowing or broadening a topic, finding appropriate sources, and identifying useful and credible information.

Writing tutors provide assistance with building and structuring a paper, developing a thesis, proofreading, and more.

Ohio State navigation bar

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

The Writing Center

What is the Writing Center? The Writing Center offers free help with writing at any stage of the writing process for any member of the university community. During our sessions, consultants can work with you on anything from research papers to lab reports, from dissertations to résumés, from proposals to application materials

Who can use the Writing Center? We are a free service open to all writers in the OSU community, including but not limited to: students, staff, faculty, visiting scholars, and post-doctoral scholars at OSU.

What can the Writing Center help me with? During our sessions, consultants can work with you on anything from research papers to lab reports, from dissertations to résumés, from proposals to application materials. The OSU Writing Center’s consultants are trained to listen to you and to work with you to identify your writing style, a particular assignment’s or project’s expectations, and to give you specific advice or writing tools. You can expect us to be compassionate, understanding, and eagerly committed to figuring out how to talk about your writing in a way that works for you.

Learn More about The Writing Center:

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Research Paper

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Research Paper

There will come a time in most students' careers when they are assigned a research paper. Such an assignment often creates a great deal of unneeded anxiety in the student, which may result in procrastination and a feeling of confusion and inadequacy. This anxiety frequently stems from the fact that many students are unfamiliar and inexperienced with this genre of writing. Never fear—inexperience and unfamiliarity are situations you can change through practice! Writing a research paper is an essential aspect of academics and should not be avoided on account of one's anxiety. In fact, the process of writing a research paper can be one of the more rewarding experiences one may encounter in academics. What is more, many students will continue to do research throughout their careers, which is one of the reasons this topic is so important.

Becoming an experienced researcher and writer in any field or discipline takes a great deal of practice. There are few individuals for whom this process comes naturally. Remember, even the most seasoned academic veterans have had to learn how to write a research paper at some point in their career. Therefore, with diligence, organization, practice, a willingness to learn (and to make mistakes!), and, perhaps most important of all, patience, students will find that they can achieve great things through their research and writing.

The pages in this section cover the following topic areas related to the process of writing a research paper:

• Genre - This section will provide an overview for understanding the difference between an analytical and argumentative research paper.
• Choosing a Topic - This section will guide the student through the process of choosing topics, whether the topic be one that is assigned or one that the student chooses themselves.
• Identifying an Audience - This section will help the student understand the often times confusing topic of audience by offering some basic guidelines for the process.
• Where Do I Begin - This section concludes the handout by offering several links to resources at Purdue, and also provides an overview of the final stages of writing a research paper.

• Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

The Writing Center

Meet with us in person or online.

During Fall 2024, find us in Andrews  102 or online!

Make an Appointment

At the Writing Center, our undergraduate and graduate Writing Consultants work with writers at all levels, from all disciplines, at all stages of the writing process.

All members of the UNL community (students, faculty, and staff) are welcome.

Whether you are brainstorming or organizing ideas or polishing a final draft, we look forward to discussing your writing with you.

All forms of communication are welcome, from essays, lab reports, research papers, and journal articles to presentations, cover letters, personal statements, and theses/dissertations.

Have a quick question? Look in the bottom left corner to chat with us!

Our main location is 102 Andrews Hall. We are currently offering online and in-person appointments. Please schedule your appointments through WCOnline . Visit our Online Writing Center Services page to learn more about our online formats.

Hours & Locations Campus Map

Meet with a Consultant

To guarantee you have time to work with a consultant, we encourage you to make an appointment. Open an account with UNL's WConline and schedule your appointments in any of our locations.

For Instructors

Are you an instructor who would like to collaborate with the Writing Center? We are eager to work with you! Please visit our For Instructors page to learn about the many ways we can support you and your students. You can also go straight to our language for your syllabus .

Friend Writing Center UNL on Facebook and keep up with Writing Center happenings including writing contests, job opportunities, and much more.

• Art and Design
• Business and Economics
• Communication and Media
• Health and Medicine
• Literature and Languages
• Mathematics
• Natural Sciences
• Political Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Technology and Engineering
• ...and Others!

• Follow us on Twitter
• Fan us on Facebook
• Join us on LinkedIn

Have excellent knowledge of English, are highly motivated, and looking for a reliable freelance writing job opportunity with high salary?

We have been in online freelance writing business for quite a few years now, have a dedicated team of skilled writers from all over the globe and certainly would be glad to see you as a member of our team.

At ResearchWritingCenter.com, we value professionalism, dedication, responsibility, punctuality. We provide quality writing services to clients by working with skilled writers, so if you are one of them   do not miss your opportunity to get a writing job that will definitely make a positive contribution to your income and bring you personal satisfaction. At ResearchWritingCenter.com, we grow together! Freelance writing jobs for writers that do bring satisfaction!

Needless to say, freelance writing can be tough at times. A writing job for a writer can be quite complicated if you are only a starter; it does and will take your time and energy, might result in overtime work, will make you go through tons of books trying to catch that very detail requested by a picky customer in the instructions. A home writing job might seem flexible, as you are the one to choose your working schedule and still... When surfing online and going through the 25th page on Google search results during those late evenings, your writing skills will improve, your mind will be getting more flexible, you will virtually get the second Educational degree dealing with all those instructions, subjects, topics, pages.

Isn't this what does matter?

Handle a task, deal with difficulties, succeed in what you are doing and get a reward   personal growth, recognition from customer and your work team, financial stability!

• KSC Directories
• Center for Research & Writing
• Research & Writing Guides
• KSC Graduate Student Support
• Schedule an in-class Workshop
• AI Syllabus Statements
• Guide for KSC Faculty Regarding Misuse of Generative AI in the Classroom
• Meet the Tutors & Staff
• About the Center for Research & Writing
• Award Criteria
• Excellence in First & Second Year Research & Writing Award Winners

The Center for Research & Writing will be open by appointment from May 20th to August 9th for students taking summer courses.

To schedule a virtual appointment, please click the link below. 

Contact or Connect with the Center for Research & Writing

   Chat via the Help & Chat button

Follow us on Instagram and Facebook

Welcome to the Center for Research & Writing!

The One Stop Shop for all Research and Writing Needs at Keene State College

Did you come to the right place? Find the tutoring service that's right for you!

 Learn more about the   Math Center  or  Aspire   on their websites . 

• Next: Research & Writing Guides >>
• Last Updated: Aug 13, 2024 10:30 AM
• URL: https://library.keene.edu/research-writing

Facebook Twitter Instagram

• Study Guides
• Office of the Provost and EVP
• The HUB Writing Center

Studying resources

• Discussion Tips (In-Person & Online)
• Reading Strategies
• Using Office Hours

Pre-writing resources

• Brainstorming Tips
• Reverse Outlining
• Thesis and Topic Sentences

Research resources

• Annotated Bibliographies
• Conducting Effective & Ethical Interviews
• Evaluating Online Sources

Research resources (using AI)

• Collecting Sources -- Tips for Using Connected Papers
• Collecting Sources -- Tips for Using Research Rabbit
• Managing Research Using Elicit

Citation resources

• Chicago Style Citations
• Citation Terminology

APA, MLA, Chicago, & CSE Tips

Stay Connected

View this profile on Instagram The HUB Writing Center (@ thehubscu ) • Instagram photos and videos

How to cite ChatGPT

Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.

We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.

Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.

When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.

When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.

The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:

• Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
• Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)

Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):

Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.

Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.

Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.

The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.

Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.

Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).

Other questions about citing ChatGPT

You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.

We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?

On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.

For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.

Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .

We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

• Abbreviations
• Bias-Free Language
• Capitalization
• In-Text Citations
• Italics and Quotation Marks
• Paper Format
• Punctuation
• Research and Publication
• Spelling and Hyphenation
• Tables and Figures

Full index of topics