program here - International Writing Centers Association

Transcription

Safe Harbors or Open Seas?
Navigating Currents in
Writing Center Work
INTERNATIONAL WRITING CENTERS ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PEER TUTORING IN WRITING
JOINED CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 4-6, 2010
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
About the program: Designed & compiled by Lisa Zimmerelli, Loyola University Maryland
Printed by the Whitmore Group, a Certified Green printer based out of Baltimore
About the cover:
“Pride of Baltimore II” provided courtesy of local photographer Bill McAllen
www.mcallenphotography.com
REGISTRATION INFORMATION: LOCATION
HOURS
Promenade by the International Ballroom
Wednesday 5:00 pm—7:00 pm
Thursday 8:00 am—7:00 pm
Friday
8:00 am—5:00 pm
Saturday
8:00 am—Noon
COMPUTER/ INTERNET INFORMATION: Computer access area with WIFI by the lobby
PUBLISHERS’ TABLES: Promenade, by the International Ballroom
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things
that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"A harbor, even if it is a little harbor, is a good thing . . .
It takes something from the world, and has something to give in return."
-- Sarah Orne Jewett
Welcome to IWCA-NCPTW 2010 Baltimore!
On behalf of the Executive Board of the Mid-Atlantic Writing Centers Association, we’d like to welcome you
to Baltimore 2010, a joined conference of the International Writing Centers Association and the National
Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing. As some of you may remember, on this very weekend ten years ago,
this hotel was the site of the first National Writing Centers Association’s conference held in a hotel venue,
sponsored by MAWCA! As the conference theme, “Safe Harbors or Open Seas,” indicates, we hope that this
return to Baltimore will be an opportunity for us in the writing centers community to both look back on
where we’ve been and look forward to new possibilities in writing center work.
Barbara Gaal Lutz
Conference Co-Chair
John Nordlof
Conference Co-Chair
Harvey Kail
NCPTW Conference Co-Chair
THE MID-ATLANTIC WRITING CENTERS ASSOCIATION
http://www.mawcaonline.org/
President: John Nordlof, Eastern University (2011)
Vice President: Lori Salem, Temple University (2011)
Secretary: Lisa Zimmerelli, Loyola University Maryland (2012)
Treasurer: Chip Crane, University of Maryland (2011)
Graduate Student Representative: Jennifer Follett, Loyola University Maryland (2011)
Undergraduate Student Representative: Ruth Okeke, University of Maryland (2011)
At-Large Members: Abigail Bardi, Prince George’s Community College (2011); John Boyd, Washington College (2012); Cynthia Crimmins, York College of Pennsylvania (2011); Nicole Munday, Salisbury University (2012); Leigh Ryan, University of Maryland (2011)
Ex-Officio Members (non-voting): 2010 Conference Co-Chair, Barb Lutz, University of Delaware; 2011 Conference Chair: Margaret
Ervin, West Chester University; Webmaster: Hal Halbert, Montgomery County Community College
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON PEER TUTORING IN WRITING
http://www.ncptw.org/
THE INTERNATIONAL WRITING CENTERS ASSOCIATION
http://writingcenters.org/
Past-President: Michele Eodice (2011), University of Oklahoma
President: Roberta D. Kjesrud (2011), Western Washington University
Vice-President: Nathalie Singh-Corcoran (2011), West Virginia University
Treasurer: Harry Denny (2011), St. John’s University
Secretary: Kerri Jordan (2011), Mississippi College
At-Large Representatives: Pamela Childers (2010), The McCallie School; Frankie Condon (2010), University of Nebraska-Lincoln;
Steve Sherwood (2010), Texas Christian University; Valerie Balester (2010), Texas A&M University;
Christopher Ervin (2010), Western Kentucky University; William Macauley, Jr. (2010),The College of Wooster
Graduate Student Representative: Sam Van Horne (2010), University of Iowa
Community College Representative: Sherri Winans (2010), Whatcom Community College
Secondary School Representative: Jennifer Wells (2010), Mercy High School, Burlingame, CA
Regional Representative: East Central WCA, Barb Toth, Bowling Green State University
Regional Representative: South Central WCA, Diane Dowdey, Sam Houston State University
Regional Representative: Midwest WCA, Bobbi Olson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Regional Representative: Southeastern WCA, Kevin Dvorak, St. Thomas University
Regional Representative: Mid-Atlantic WCA, John Nordlof, Eastern University
Regional Representative: Southern California WCA, Karen Rowan, California State University, San Bernardino
Regional Representative: Northern California WCA, Dan Melzer, California State University, Sacramento
Regional Representative: Pacific Northwest WCA, Teresa Joy Kramer, Central Washington University
Regional Representative: Northeast WCA, Kathryn Nielsen-Dube, Merrimack College
Regional Representative: Rocky Mountain WCA, Claire Hughes, Weber State University
Regional Representative: European WCA, Mary Deane, Coventry University
Regional Representative: Middle Eastern-North Africa Writing Centers Alliance, Paula Hayden, College of the North Atlantic-Qatar
Ex-Officio Members: Lauren Fitzgerald, Yeshiva University; Melissa Ianetta, University of Delaware; Muriel Harris, Writing Lab
Newsletter; Christopher Ervin (Web Editor), Western Kentucky University; Magnus Gustafsson (EATAW—European Association for
the Teaching of Academic Writing), Chalmers University of Technology
Acknowledgments
All proposals for this conference were read by multiple reviewers, but serving as a reviewer meant much more than simply saying
“yes” or “no.” To help with decisions about accepting or rejecting proposals and how to schedule them appropriately, reviewers
had to explain what impressed them about each proposal. In some cases, especially with NCPTW proposals, they made suggestions for changes that were passed on to the proposers for revision. Then those reviewers looked at the revised proposals.
The many people who helped us to review proposals are listed below. We thank all of you for your help.
We also thank the English Departments at the University of Maryland and the University of Delaware for providing us with graduate students Danny Synk and Elizabeth Keenan to assist with the technological aspects of handling proposals. Likewise, thanks to
the peer tutors at the Fashion Institute of Technology for their flawless help in setting up the NCPTW spreadsheet. Stella Santerre
and Jaime Drew, English Department, University of Maine also lent invaluable support.
Leigh Ryan for IWCA, University of Maryland
Libby Anthony, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Janet Auten, American University
John Boyd, Washington College
Lisa Breslin, McDaniel College
Kathleen Shine Cain, Merrimack College
John Chapin, University of Baltimore
Pamela Childers, The McCallie School
Christopher “Chip” Crane, University of Maryland
Cynthia Crimmins, York College of Pennsylvania
Dominic Delli Carpini, York College of Pennsylvania
Harry Denny, St. John’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Bonnie Devet, College of Charleston
Susan Dinitz, The University of Vermont
Michele Eodice, The University of Oklahoma
&
Harvey Kail for NCPTW, University of Maine
Brian Fallon, Fashion Institute of Technology
Jennifer Follett, Loyola University Maryland
Allison Holland, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Brian Mays, Temple University
Harriet Millan, Drexel University
Nicole Munday, Salisbury University
James Purdy, Duquesne University
Ben Rafoth, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Lori Salem, Temple University
Molly Scanlan, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Jeanne Simpson, Arizona State University
Trixie Smith, Michigan State University
IWCA Conferences and Institutes Committee: Nathalie Singh-Corcoran, Chair; Carolyn Kinslow, Deaver Traywick, Jennifer Kunka,
Rosemary Adang, Shareen Grogan
Keynote Committee: Jon Olson, Chair; Nathalie Singh-Corcoran, Emily K. Rothrock, Dominic Delli Carpini
Sponsorships Chair: Lori Salem
Local Arrangements Committee: Abigail Bardi, Chair; John Chapin, Jennifer Follett, Caitlin Aymong, and the undergraduate staff of
the Loyola Writing Center
Program Committee: Lisa Zimmerelli, Chair; Barb Lutz, Lisa Breslin, Harvey Kail, John Nordlof, Jared Featherstone, Nicole Munday,
Leigh Ryan, the undergraduate staff of the Loyola Writing Center
Registration Chairs: Cynthia Crimmins and John Boyd
Webmaster: Hal Halbert
Treasurer: Christopher “Chip” Crane
NCPTW Travel Grants: Christopher Ervin, Sam Van Horne, Leigh Ryan
IWCA Scholarships: Shareen Grogan, Nathalie Singh-Corcoran
Scholar-to-Scholar Sessions Coordinator: Christopher Ervin
SIGs Coordinator: Shareen Grogan
Workshops Coordinator: Roberta Kjesrud
Moderators Coordinator: John Chapin
Sheraton Hotel Sales Managers: Richard Bryant, Pat Palmer
Lobby Level Meeting Space
Cabana Level Meeting Space
Lower Lobby Meeting Space
THURSDAY
8:00—8:45 am
Welcome
International Ballroom
9:00—10:10 am
Session A
10:20—11:30 am
Session B
11:45—1:30 pm
Lunch
THEMATIC SCHEDULE
(on your own)
1:30—2:40 pm
Session C
2:50—4:00 pm
Session D
4:10—5:20 pm
Session E
5:30—6:30 pm
SIGS
6:30—8:00 pm
Reception
Hall of Fame Lounge
FRIDAY
7:45—8:25 am
IWCA Board Meeting
International Ballroom D
8:30—9:40 am
Session F
9:50—11:00 am
Session G
11:10—12:20 pm
Session H
12:30—2:00 pm
Lunch & Keynote
2:10—3:10 pm
Scholar-to-Scholar (Poster) Sessions
Ethical Issues in Tutoring & Writing: A.2, B.9,
D.10, K.5, L.4
Practice & Application: A.3, A.9, A.14, B.3, B.4,
B.12, B.15, C.1, C.5, C.7, C.9, C.13, C.14, D.7, E.
1, E.6, F.5, F.7, F.14, G.3, G.4, G.5, G.8, G.10,
H.5, I.2, I.3, I.4, I.6, I.9, J.2, J.3, J.6, J.8, J.9, J.11,
J.12, K.3, K.6, K.8, K.10, K.12, L.7, L.9, M.1, M.2,
M.4, M.9, N.2, N.5, N.6, N.8
Research & Theory: A.1, A.10, A.13, B.7, C.2,
D.8, D.9, D.15, E.7, E.8, E.15, F.4, F.8, F.15, G.2,
G.3, G.13, H.2, H.5, H.8, H.9, H.15, I.8, J.6, K.11,
K.12, L.9, M.3, N.5, N.7
Specific Student or Tutor Populations: A.8,
B.6, C.6, D.3, D.14, D.16, E.8, E.15, F.2, F.11,
G.7, H.5, H.14, I.3, I.15, J.4, J.7, J.8, K.1, K.9,
K.10, L.1, L.3, L.7, L.10, M.5, N.4, N.5
Technology: B.4, C.6, C.10, D.4, D.12, G.1,
G.10, I.3, M.8
International Ballroom E
3:20—4:30 pm
Session I
4:40—5:50 pm
Session J
6:00—7:00 pm
SIGS
6:00—7:30 pm
NCPTW Social
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy: A.7, B.1,
B.2, B.12, C.15, D.6, D.12, F.1, F.2, F.13, G.6,
I.1, I.7, I.12, I.13, J.1, J.5, J.10, K.2, K.4, K.9,
K.11, K.12, L.6, L.8, L.9, L.11, L.12, M.6, M.7,
M.12, N.5
Hall of Fame Lounge
The Writing Center & the Community: A.6,
B.8, C.4, D.1
SATURDAY
ALL DAY
7:45—8:25 am
8:30—9:40 am
9:50—11:00 am
11:10—12:20 pm
12:30—2:00 pm
2:10—3:10 pm
3:20—4:30 pm
4:30—5:00 pm
Workshops
NCPTW Board Meeting
International Ballroom D
Session K
Session L
Session M
Lunch & Keynote
Scholar-to-Scholar (Poster) Sessions
International Ballrooms E
Session N
Closing Remarks
The Writing Center within the University &
Institution: A.4, A.5, A.11, A.12, B.5, B.8, B.10,
B.13, C.8, D.2, D.5, D.11, D.13, D.15, E.2, F.6,
G.11, G.12, H.2, H.3, H.4, H.6, H.12, I.2, I.5,
I.10, I.14, J.6, K.7, M.10, M.11 N.1, N.9
CONFERENCE PLANNER
THURSDAY
SESSION A
SESSION B
SESSION C
SESSION D
SESSION E
FRIDAY
SESSION F
SESSION G
SESSION H
SESSION I
SESSION J
SATURDAY
SESSION K
SESSION L
SESSION M
SESSION N
Thursday
8:00 AM—8:45 AM
8:00 am — 10:10 am
WELCOME
INTERNATIONAL A, B, & C
“Doing Less with Less is More”
Roberta Kjesrud, IWCA President
A.1
ADAMS
Research & Theory/ Workshop/ IWCA
WINDS OF CHANGE: WRITING CENTERS RESEARCH PROJECT AT 10 YEARS, SETTING SAIL INTO THE FUTURE
A.1—A.3
Allison Holland, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
The Writing Center Research Project preserves records of the national growth of the writing center movement. As the WCRP
moves to a new location and into a new decade, the goal continues, but with a new emphasis on the preservation of individual
writing center founding histories. This session presents the results of a new survey taken at the 2010 4Cs pre-conference Writing Centers Collaborative and demonstrates how IWCA/NCPTW participants can begin collecting, recording, and preserving
their individual writing center histories as important historical records, as well as persuasive documents to improve their campus visibilities. The presentation illustrates the criteria for identifying individuals and materials for establishing critical timelines in local writing center history preservation, presents protocols for maintaining academic credibility in gathering historical
data, and helps participants create a working list of goals and objectives to begin their research. Participants will work collaboratively to develop action plans for their writing center history collection, develop mini-timelines of local writing center founding events, and will have the opportunity to become part of an electronic discussion group developed to encourage and mentor
participants until the next IWCA conference.
A.2
CALHOUN
Ethical Issues in Tutoring & Writing/ Workshop/ NCPTW
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IN THE WRITING CENTER
Tayler Lofquist and Writing Center Staff, The George Washington University
Coming from one of the most politically active schools in the country, a group of peer tutors from The George Washington University will speak about the role that political ideology plays in our discipline. Our writing center is filled with intellectual discourse, especially in the political arena, as many students are forming political views during their college years. These developments are often reflected in student’s writing, so passionate political views may play a role in writing center interactions.
A.3
D'ALESANDRO
Practice & Application/ Workshop/IWCA
PEER TUTORING, PRACTICAL TOOLS, AND MULTI-CULTURAL COLLEGIALITY IN THE WRITING CENTRE
Craig Peterson and Roxanne Harde, University of Alberta
Our workshop discusses and demonstrates developments designed to equip our tutors with practical tools to help EAL students
in our Writing Centre at Augustana, a small college in rural Alberta. At the beginning of our workshop, session leaders and peer
tutors will briefly discuss our felt need to develop strategies that would allow us to adopt a more directive tutoring approach for
EAL students while ensuring that they maintain ownership of their writing. Our approach uses templates—worksheets with
leading questions that tutors can use to help writing-centre clients, whatever their background or skill level, meet the disciplinary requirements of their academic writing tasks. Peer tutors will demonstrate (while session leaders describe) three of our
template-based strategies: one to help writers learn to summarize and paraphrase without plagiarizing; another to help them to
write objective lab reports; and finally one to guide EAL writers towards the appropriate article for any given noun. After each
demonstration, workshop participants will be given the templates (worksheets) and asked to play the role of writing-centre
tutors or clients. By experiencing first-hand our template-based approach to peer tutoring, participants will then be able to
judge and comment on the efficacy or potential of our approach.
Thursday
A.4
HOPKINS
9:00 am — 10:10 am
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/Panel/ IWCA
DECENTRALIZED: REDEFINING 'CONVENTIONAL' WRITING CENTER IDENTITIES AND PRACTICES
Al Harahap, San Francisco State University; Robert Cedillo, University of Nevada, Reno;
John Dunn Jr. and Suzanne Gray, Eastern Michigan University; Julie Story, Lock Haven University
Ideas of the generic writing center remain problematic for unusual institutional configurations (Harris 1990; Carino 2002). Innovation
and change are necessary for writing centers to meet the local and national demands for accountability, academic preparedness, and
support for student learning--especially within an unfavorable economic environment. Indeed, we know our work by the diversity of its
configurations and the uniqueness of an intra/inter-disciplinary eye toward writing through local contexts. That we often occupy distinctive and interesting positions within our respective academic and public communities provides writing “centers” with an u ncommon
reach across administrative and conceptual frameworks for the development of writing in our lives. This panel explores four unique
contexts for “writing center” work, and hopes to foster opportunities for engaging in cross-talk and productive audience participation.
Story describes various characteristics of secondary-postsecondary writing center collaborations as models of shared responsibility and
leadership to improve students' writing skills. Cedillo examines what happens when a university writing center is defunded and removed as a student service. Harahap explores how a university negotiates multiple sites and forms of writing support. Dunn, Jr. and
Gray explain an innovative hybrid center that combines support for academic literacy, library research, and technology servic es.
A.5
INTERNATIONAL E
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Workshop/ IWCA
SMASHING THE TABLETS: CHALLENGING THE SACRED COMMANDMENTS OF WRITING CENTER ADMINISTRATION
Pam Childers, The McCallie School; Muriel Harris, Purdue University; Jeanne Simpson, Arizona State University;
This workshop will challenge assumptions behind five common statements about writing center administration. After presenters
introduce the statements and briefly discuss the problems inherent in each, participants will divide into groups to explore the
assumptions and framing of each statement, to assess the accuracy and legitimacy of each, and to consider alternative perspectives and approaches. All groups will share their findings as part of the discussion, followed by questions and responses. Participants will leave the workshop with new perspectives and more questions to apply to their own administrative philosophy and
practices. The following five common attitudes will be examined in this workshop:
1. “I must maintain a large collection of handouts, tip sheets, and print material for consultants and writers.”
2. “I must accommodate every request for workshops and other support or faculty won’t support my writing center.”
3. “I must promise that students will become better writers by working with our consultants.”
4. “I must constantly explain the writing center’s work and importance to my supervisors.”
5. “I must track usage statistics to prove the value of my writing center.”
A.6
INTERNATIONAL F
The Writing Center & the Community/Panel/ IWCA
EXPLORING UNCHARTERED PROFESSIONAL GROUND(S): NOTES FROM HOSTING FOUR MINI-REGIONAL CONFERENCES IN
SWCA 2010—EXPERIMENT AND EXPERIENCE
Shanti Bruce, Nova Southeastern Univ.; Laura Bokus, Caldwell CC and Technical Institute; Beth Burmester, Georgia State Univ.;
Christine Cozzens, Agnes Scott College; Kevin Dvorak, St. Thomas University; Kerri Jordan and Steve Price, Mississippi College
For their annual spring conference in 2010, the Southeastern Writing Center Association Executive Board decided to depart fro m its
safe harbor—the traditional large regional conference—and venture out into unchartered waters—a mini-regional/statewide conference format that required the organization to organize, sponsor, and manage four smaller, localized conferences. Upon making this
decision at their 2009 summer retreat, the executive board acknowledged that this could be a dangerous adventure, but that th ere
could be, as Twain and the CFP suggest, much to be gained by acknowledging uncertainty, taking risks, and reaching out into u nfamiliar territory. Much was gained, as the unfamiliar territory for many of these organizers proved to be the geographical areas closest to
them and the writing centers that inhabited those spaces. Speaker 1 will provide a framework for the session an overview of the
SWCA’s decision to revamp its conference format. The four mini-regional organizational teams will speak for ten minutes each about
their conferences. The presentation will conclude with a discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of this new format.
A.4—A.6
Trixie Smith, Michigan State University; Deaver Traywick, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Thursday
A.7
MCKELDON
9:00 am — 10:10 am
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Workshop/ IWCA
WRITING CENTER AS ELLIS ISLAND FOR LATIN-AMERICANS: THE FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Katherine Schmidt, Dennis Butler, Heidi Coley, Ryan Daven, and Denisse Maciel, Western Oregon University
A century ago, immigrants entered America through the safe harbor of Ellis Island, from which point they launched out to purs ue the
American Dream of better lives. Today, in like manner, Latino students enter writing center harbors seeking equal opportuniti es to
success in academia. Latino students are now the fastest growing yet most vulnerable demographic in higher education (Lumina
Foundation 2010). Building on the work of Thonus (2003) and Rebennack (2005), this workshop offers tools for training tutors to
meet the specific needs of Latino student-writers, whose challenges are markedly different than the challenges of domestic and international students. Presenters provide an overview of the history and future of Latin-American students in higher education, with
emphases on academic literacies and writing challenges specific to the group. Audience members will participate in two module s,
“Cognates” and “Written Transfer”; the modules are designed to train tutors with limited to proficient knowledge of Spanish t o provide effective feedback for Spanish-speaking students regarding reading and writing in academic English. Presenters will offer tutortraining materials, which include the readings and lessons for the two mini-lessons.
A.8
MENCKEN
Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Roundtable/ IWCA
BRINGING CREATIVE WRITERS AND BUDDING JOURNALISTS INTO THE CENTER:
HOW PEER TUTORS AT PSU BRANDYWINE TARGET SPECIFIC STUDENT WRITERS
A.7—A.9
Pamela Main, Mary-Therese Capaldi, Andrew Dombalagian, Andrew Shaner, and Adrienne Showalter, Penn State Brandywine
On campuses, countless young writers ply their trade on the waters of literature. Just as in the days of yore, it falls to the veteran
lighthouse keepers—the staff of the writing center—to guide these writers to where they need to go. At the Brandywine Campus of
Penn State, there is much welcomed overlap between the Writing Center staff and the editors of the campus literary magazine, Penn
in Hand. Despite the considerable heart and talent possessed by Brandywine’s aspiring literati, many could benefit by visiting the
writing center. We find from faculty and students that the campus newspaper also contains errors that undercut the quality of the
publication. As peer tutors, we wish to extend our services to these editors as well. Many of the student editors of Penn in Hand also
serve as student tutors at the campus writing center. They have conceived a synergy between the two vocations. The student tutors
and editors are embarking on an effort to encourage student contributors to the literary magazine and newspaper to submit their
work to the writing center. As in any endeavor, issues need to be addressed. How may students be encouraged to utilize the writing
center’s resources for their literary contributions? Do the students perceive a disparity between bringing course-related work to the
writing center and bringing personal work? Despite these and other questions, the student tutors and editors are determined to unfurl their sails to begin this experiment and work to improve both their peers’ literary and rhetorical writing skills.
A.9
E. A. POE
Practice & Application/ Roundtable/ IWCA
PEDAGOGICAL PIRACY: APPROPRIATING WC PEDAGOGY FOR USE IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM
Meg Mikovits, Moravian College; Kelly Allen and Shauna Gobble, Northampton Community College;
Kara Polhemus, Brookdale Community College
This roundtable panel is comprised of English professors who have current and previous writing center experience. Presenters
will discuss how the application of writing center pedagogy in the classroom helps to shift authority from the instructor to the
students, creating an environment where students feel empowered to speak about language and text (Freire). A variety of assessment and revision strategies will be provided to showcase how writers, with the freedom to choose which methods work for
them, gain ownership of their writing and a deepened thinking about learning and writing. Methods discussed will include kinesthetic, visual, and auditory revision strategies as well as tutoring strategies like individual conferences, self-analysis, and peer
review (Gardner; Black; Straub). Participants will be asked to share their experiences and contribute ideas about how writing
pedagogy can be further utilized in the composition classroom and will also be invited to engage in some of the techniques discussed by the presenters. Additionally, this panel will consider how writing center tutors and administrators can make practical,
innovative contributions to critical classroom pedagogy.
Thursday
A.10
9:00 am — 10:10 am
PRATT A
Research & Theory/ Panel/IWCA
INFORMAL ONLINE DISCOURSE AS A "HOME" LANGUAGE:
WRITING CENTERS AND THE POLITICIZED SPACE OF E-COMMUNICATIONS
Sara Littlejohn, Alan Benson, and Jennifer Whitaker, University of North Carolina—Greensboro
Increasing uses of informal online discourse (IOD) triggers complaints about deteriorating student writing. Yet IOD (Facebook,
Twitter, and IM) carries a deep familiarity that feels natural to students. Most students write more text messages than essays,
and “brb” and “lol” have already extended into speech and papers. Since IOD is normalized for Millennial students, it can be
reconceptualized as an alternate “home” language. Building upon Shaughnessy’s argument that patterns of “error” are driven
by familiar structures of language, this panel explores implications of reconceiving IOD as a complex practice rather than as a
reflection of a willful disregard for writing traditions. Given the resolution that students have a right to their own language,
how can considerations of IOD as a “home” language recast the way we see student writers in the center? Panelists examine
how IOD needs to be depoliticized in order to effectively reach writers, how blurred on and offline identities contribute to students’ identities and texts, and how the abbreviated form of a cell phone or text box influences the perception of IOD as genre.
Such a language paradigm shift has theoretical and practical implications for writing centers. Depoliticizing this language provides a new, critical understanding of writers.
A.11
PRATT B
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Panel/ IWCA
THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW: WRITING CENTERS AND WAC IN PHARMACY EDUCATION
In 1998, the Writing Center directors at two colleges of pharmacy published an optimistic account of their plans for implementing Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) at their institutions, envisioning the Center as leading the way to improve students' communication and thinking skills through an expanded liberal arts curriculum, and the suffusion of writing throughout
the professional curriculum. That was then...This is now: the current Writing Center directors find that optimism of their
predecessors has to be tempered with patience and dogged persistsence. Efforts to promote WAC conflict with the economic
reality of large class-sizes, the cultural resistance to pedagogical change, and often-conflicting demands on the Writing Center
to remediate rather than lead the way forward. The heirs of the first WAC pioneers continue to make progress, but have
learned some hard lessons along the way. In this session, we consider how far we have come since the early days of WAC and
Writing Center optimism at our institutions, and evaluate what has worked, and what challenges remain. This program should
be of interested to anyone exploring the relationship between writing centers and WAC programs, especially in professional
schools; and to those interested in how curricular change can inform writing center pedagogy.
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/Panel/ IWCA
CREATING A SAFE HARBOR WHILE AT SEA: COMBINING INNOVATION AND STABILITY IN THE WC
Heather Robinson, Douglas Di Toro, and Laurel Harris, York College/CUNY
At the Writing Center at York College, we strive to create a safe harbor for students in composition and writing-intensive
courses. However, to do so, administrators and tutors must perpetually seek uncharted waters in order to remain relevant to
the broader campus community. The central question that we will explore in this panel presentation is how we embrace the
sometimes choppy seas of innovation while continuing to fulfill the safe haven role that, for many, is a writing center’s pri mary charge.
The first speaker will give an overview of how we are seeking to broaden the relevance of York’s writing center through making new kinds of connections within the institution. One panel member at the forefront of York’s new e-portfolio initiative will
discuss the challenges that involved in moving faculty and students into a new technological harbor. The other two panel
members, a tutor and a CUNY graduate student working in the college’s Writing Across the Curriculum Program, will discuss
our efforts to involve good WAC practice in the writing center’s work, exploring the opportunities and pitfalls inherent in building connections with the disciplines while keeping tutoring practice firmly anchored in what we know works.
A.10—A.11
Susan Mueller, St. Louis College of Pharmacy; Carol-Ann Farkas, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Thursday
A.12
PRESTON
9:00 am — 10:10 am
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Roundtable/ IWCA
COOPERATIVE PORTS: CREATING COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WRITING CENTERS AND SUBJECT-AREA TUTORING
Courtney Frederick, Alexandria Hadden, and Lynn Hassan, Long Island University, Brooklyn
Fears of merging writing centers into subject-area learning centers raise issues of purpose and identity. Should we panic or roll
up our sleeves? Instead of fearing these administrative reorganizations as the end of writing centers altogether, why not begin
to see this as an opportunity to teach cooperative behavior within an institutional environment? How can we honor the differences in our centers, while supporting cross-fertilization? Experimentation and communication can be pathways to discovery.
Recognizing that colleges and universities are both learning environments and businesses, how can we work together to create
best practices through cooperation? Do we have enough faith in our own capacities to reflect on our practices? How well do we
hear each other? Are we receptive to various ideas? How do we block receptivity? In this round table session the presenters
will discuss how they brought writing tutors and subject-area tutors together to create a cooperative training model on their
campus. The conversation will include the sites of convergence between writing centers and learning centers, and the impact
such collaboration can have across campus.
A.13
SCHAEFER
Research & Theory/ Panel/ IWCA
WRITING CONSULTANTS AS TUGBOATS: AN INVESTIGATION ON THE "PULL" CONSULTANT FEEDBACK EXERTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
A.12—14
Karen Johnson and Nicole Bollinger, Shippensburg University; Catherine Hagan and Samuel Waddell, York College
In the previous study, “Rethinking Commenting Strategies for a New Generation of Developmental Writers,” researchers discovered that students who received feedback from writing consultants made significantly larger gains in achievement of learning
outcomes when compared to a control group of students who did not receive such feedback. As a follow-up to this study, these
same researchers from two different universities will evaluate four classes of developmental students to further explore the
impact of writing consultations. This panel of instructors and writing consultants will complete a mixed methods study that
measures student achievement of learning outcomes in a written assignment to determine the underlying factors that influence
student success in the attainment of learning outcomes. Experimental measures will reveal if there are significant differences
between two classes of students who obtain writing consultant feedback when compared to two classes of students who do not
receive consultant feedback. A qualitative analysis of students’ perceptions via a Likert scale and an open-end questionnaire will
allow researchers to interpret the results of empirical investigations. After presenting the findings of the study and its implications to writing center pedagogy, a round-table discussion about the power of conducting writing consultations for developmental writers will be conducted.
A.14
WASHINGTON
Practice & Application/ Workshop/ IWCA
PLAYING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: USING CREATIVE WRITING EXERCISES IN CRITICAL WRITING REVISION
Holly Bittner, Moore College of Art and Design
Writing centers have been recognized for their unique position within academia as sites of playfulness and spontaneity. Yet
how often do we apply imaginative play to the actual process of revision as we assist and assess students in their critical writing? Creativity is often encouraged by writing instructors and tutors in the pre-writing stage through journaling, freewriting,
and brainstorming, but by the later stages of writing this spirit of play is too often left behind and replaced with well-meaning
yet often paralyzing directive judgment couched in the rhetoric of “development” and “progress.”
In this workshop we will get back to basics and get our hands dirty with language by performing various exercises on critical
writing that are usually reserved only for experimental creative writing workshops. How might we create the conditions for
student writers to better see, hear, and even touch their own words, and what might this sensory egagement with text allow?
What can backward readings, Dada cut-ups, poetic chance operations, and oral performance show students about their own
writing? What possibilities for revision might such experiments reveal, and how might they help revise the relationships between students, tutors and instructors? Join the inquiry; come and play!
Thursday
B.1
10:20 am — 11:30 am
ADAMS
MAKING CONSULTANT WORK WORK FOR CONSULTANTS Workshop
Andrea Saathof and Brian Gatten, University of Texas at Austin; Jamie Jesson, La Salle University
The writing center's core mission is to impart valuable writing skills to the students who visit us. But while fulfilling that mission,
our consultants develop skills that can be immensely valuable in their future careers. At the Undergraduate Writing Center
(UWC) at the University of Texas, Austin, we've developed several programs to help our undergraduate and graduate consultants develop specific skills and communicate their value to future employers. To use the harbor metaphor, we're acting as the
shipyard for our staff, helping them choose the materials to build their boats before sailing out to the open ocean.
In this workshop, we'll discuss the UWC's largely non-directive approach to professionalization through our training modules,
project groups, white paper series, and peer leadership programs, as well as a pilot project to certify consultants in specialty
areas such as ESL consulting, application preparation, technical writing, etc. Then we'll break into small groups to discuss training and professionalization programs at participants' writing centers and explore how they can be used to support the center's
core mission as well as the futures of its staff.
B.2
CALHOUN
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Panel/ IWCA
Helping Writers with X: Why and How
Kim Ballard, Meghan Dykema, and Helena Witzke, Western Michigan University; Daniel Kenzie, Purdue University;
B.1—B.3
Patrick Love, Daytona State College
The X in our title stands in place of four genres:
 resumes/CVs
 creative writing
 standardized essay tests (GRE, teacher certifications, etc.)
 longer documents (undergraduate theses, capstone projects, etc.)
We believe these genres allow some of the best writing center conversations/lessons possible, yet many centers do not promote their ability to help writers with these genres. Consequently, when consultants get requests for such help, they often feel
unable to engage in purposeful conversation.
In this presentation, speakers will advocate that consultants should be trained to help writers with these genres, explain how
such efforts offer positive results for writers and consultants, encourage audience members to share why they do/don’t embrace these genres, and explore reconsiderations of negative views. Finally, speakers will briefly review, through discussion and
handouts, how consultants can help writers with each genre.
B.3
D’ALESANDRO
WHO'S GOT THE COMPASS? NAVIGATING YOUR WAY TO CREATING AND MAINTAINING A SUCCESSFUL CENTER
Andrew Jeter, Niles West High School; Sharon Sheehan, Glenbrook South High School
Whether you are on an aircraft carrier or a rubber dinghy, having a plan is always a good idea. Before school improvement plans
and rti plans, a literacy center must have its own plan for navigating the everyday and the year-after-year. These plans may include mission statements, tutor training programs, peer-to-peer tutoring philosophies, outreach programs, and budgets. They
might also include a plan for remaining sane in an often insane job. Join two literacy center coordinators for a realistic conversation about what it takes to create and maintain a successful literacy center and how to sell that center to your community. Participants will be given an opportunity to workshop sample plans and time to share their own plans with their peers.
Thursday
B.4
10:20 am — 11:30 am
HOPKINS
Technology/ Panel/ IWCA
NAVIGATING NEW WATERS: CHARTING A COURSE FOR SYNCHRONOUS CONFERENCING
Cheryl Hawkinson Melkun, Burke Moeller, and Lauren Morrison, University of Mary Washington
Every voyage of new discovery involves anxiety, curiosity, and mystery. These fears are also experienced when writing centers
first venture online to offer synchronous conferencing. How do we select a conferencing platform? How will we schedule appointments? Will students use the service? What if they don’t use the service? Can we create a dialogic, collaborative conference online? Will going online lessen the quality of our conferences? Speaker one, the writing center director, will discuss
charting the course: conferencing platform selection, usability testing, and implementation. Speaker two, the writing center
coordinator, will discuss the writing center’s use of automated scheduling software linked to our school’s Blackboard suite, and
how this software empowers the student in the scheduling process. Speaker three, an online tutor, will explain how the moderator and student join the online session, online conference protocol, and client reactions. Navigating the new world of synchronous online writing conferences involves steering through occasionally choppy waters, for both students and educators.
The presentation will conclude by inviting questions from the audience and discussing how captain and crew can steer through
sudden storms and explore the many frontiers of emerging technology.
Practice & Application/ Panel/ IWCA
WHO'S SAILING THE SHIP? RECOGNIZING AND WORKING TOWARD WRITER ENGAGEMENT
Alexandra Mentus, Appalachian State University
B.5
INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM E
THE WRITING CENTER: NAVIGATING THE WATERS OF CRITICAL THINKING IN THE DISCIPLINES
Patricia Dyer, Annalisa Castaldo, Tara Friedman, Melissa Mowday, Ken Pobo, and Robert Reutter, Widener University
These days our Writing Center, staffed by faculty, finds that across campus everyone is talking about writing. In many cases we’re
speaking the same language: critical thinking, rubrics, reflections, claims and evidence. Our conversation has developed thro ugh
ten years of brown bag lunches and faculty workshops facilitated by the Center. Taking a problem solving approach, three team s
of Writing Center faculty will facilitate a workshop focused on the nuts and bolts of working with assignments. We’ll begin with a
pair and share, “bridging the word gap,” in which we consider what typical question words mean to students and faculty: how
they are different, where they coincide. Next, we’ll break into small discussion groups to consider what counts as claims and
what counts as evidence in various disciplines. When we reconvene, we’ll share our results and reflect on how the information
gathered may/can contribute to our work in the Center as we navigate the waters of critical thinking in the disciplines.
B.4—B5
Ideally, writing center consultants are guides who offer perspective and aid without forcing the writer to change their work, nor
allowing them to sit back and have the work written for them. In this panel, the presenters will explore situations that allow
writer engagement, situations in which the consultant may anticipate a client’s level of taking ownership, and ways to navigate
through a session where writer ownership is in a constant state of flux. One presenter will explore ways in which experienced
versus inexperienced writers will handle ownership in a session. The audience will participate in an activity that illustrates the
difference between agency and non-agency. The other two presentations will discuss ways to foster writer ownership through
direct and indirect means, including the use of nonverbal communication and non-directive statements. These presentations
will demonstrate what directive versus non-directive consulting looks like, and also how non-verbal signals can be used to create an atmosphere in which the writer is comfortable engaging and also to recognize and respond to when a consulting strategy
is not working. The audience will be shown an example of the power of body language, an aspect of writing center work often
underemphasized in consultant training, and will also be encouraged to share experiences in which nonverbal signals helped
them perceive a session as being either “safe” or “unsafe” to the client or consultant.
Thursday
B.6
10:20 am — 11:30 am
INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM F
Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Panel/ IWCA
BEYOND THE HARBOR TO WHITEWATER RAPIDS: ELL STUDENTS, AMERICAN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE, AND WRITING CENTERS
Kathy Evertz, Khant Khant Kyaw, and Julie McCormick, Carleton College; Stina Attebery, Fatima Omar, and Su Smallen, St.
Olaf College; Amelia Furrow, Becky Graham, Danlu Hu, Macalester College
This session will consider the role of the writing center in helping ELL/ESL students plot a route through the sometimes whitewater rapids of American academic discourse. What is the role of the peer tutor in this odyssey? Captain, fellow traveler, guiding star, crew? Panelists--including ELL/ESL students, peer tutors with whom they have worked, and directors of writing centers
from three Minnesota liberal-arts colleges--will discuss issues of conformity, resistance, and voice as ELL/ESL writers encounter
and produce texts at colleges in the U.S. In discussing our practice, we want to complicate Carol Severino’s 1993 “The Sociopolitical Implications of Response to Second Language and Second Dialect Writing.” Specifically, we will talk about how the
"accommodationalist" and “assimilationist” approaches Severino discusses actually play out in our ESL/ELL tutoring sessions.
ELL panelists will address how they navigate between their professors' assimilationist expectations (or their own) and their experience with “accomodationalist” tutoring. Tutor panelists will discuss their struggle to steer between the expectations of their
directors and their understanding or assumptions of what professors want, and what the ESL/ELL writers with whom they work
want. Addressing the difficulty of using an accommodationalist approach in the often-assimilationist environment of a rigorous
liberal arts college has important implications for how we train our tutors and market our centers.
B.6—B.7
B.7
JEFFERSON
RESEARCH AS GENUINE INQUIRY: NAVIGATING ON OUR OWN TERMS
Sandra Yannone and Courtney Frantz, The Evergreen State College
In the Writing Center world, we often encounter research as an outside imposition: an institutionally driven “evaluation” or
“assessment” of our practice. In our own centers, we pursue differing goals as members of a helping profession, a scholarly
field, and a network of institutions. As a result of these tensions, we rarely examine research in the light of its original intent: to
ask questions—out of both genuine curiosity and a desire to improve our field—and to pursue these questions rigorously. In
this session, we will explore ways to safely take our current practices and values with us to the open seas, using reflective writing, observation, and conversation to drive research and improve our praxis.
We will begin the session with a brief, lively discussion of research as inquiry, contrasting “evaluation” with studies developed
from our own questions. Next, we will use our own research tools to help participants rediscover the genuine questions that
have been percolating in their minds. We will facilitate participants’ formulation of their own potential research questions and
assist each other in reshaping them for use in research. Participants will then perform miniature “trial runs,” exploring their
own questions using both ethnographic and survey-based methods through group activities. We will conclude by summarizing
our own Self-Study as an example of re-envisioned research based on our Center’s needs. The presenters will co-facilitate each
portion of this session.
Thursday
B.8
MCKELDON
10:20 am — 11:30 am
CHARTING A COURSE FOR FACULTY ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: THE WRITING CENTER AS A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
Kathleen Shine Cain and Kathryn Nielsen-Dube, Merrimack College
Geller et al call upon Writing Center administrators to “participate in and shape learning cultures within institutions” (2007, p.
118), focusing on learning paradigms and developing communities of practice. In colleges without WAC coordinators, ESL/L2
coordinators, or academic technology coordinators, the Writing Center can facilitate faculty development by providing teaching
resources across the curriculum. Conducting learning needs and resources assessments (LNRAs) that are driven by the central
question, “Who needs what, according to whom?” (Vella, 2007), the center can determine what issues are of greatest concern
to faculty and the kinds of facilitation that faculty and their students would find most helpful. We will report on a survey conducted at a small liberal arts college and discuss the workshops, conversations, teaching circles, and other resources that we
have developed in response to interdisciplinary faculty needs (e.g., workshops on Web 2.0 technologies, conversations on working with L2 learners). Participants will then discuss the ways in which they might engage in faculty development within their
own institutional contexts. The goal of the session will be for participants to leave with an action plan for utilizing LNRAs as a
means to shape their learning cultures and create communities of practice.
The Writing Center & the Community/ Panel/ IWCA
ADVANCED STUDENTS AND WRITING EMPHASIS: CREATING AND TEACHING MINI-COURSES IN THE DISCIPLINES
Cheryl Carithers, Amy Hermanson, and Steve Sherwood, Texas Christian University
B.9
MENCKEN
Ethical Issues in Tutoring & Writing/ Roundtable/ NCPTW
THE POWER DYNAMICS OF PEERNESS: INVESTIGATING THE PEER-TUTOR IDENTITY
Seth Trenchard, Bahadir Demirel, Emilee Lindley, Brittanie Witter, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
The roundtable will consist of a set of brief presentations on the subject of the dis-/empowering elements of the tutor identity,
as it is contrasted with the notion of tutors as peers. These presentations will explore the definitions, meanings and practical
ramifications of the peer-tutor identity. They will also speak to situations, which complicate the peer-tutor identity, particularly
issues surrounding ESL students and the complications of race and gender. Afterwards, participants will engage in a small-group
exercise surrounding their own interpretations of that identity. Finally, the discussion will migrate to the larger group, and we
will collectively pursue ways of moving and being as peer-tutors.
B.8—B.9
In the past few years, our writing center has received requests from various disciplines for writing instruction that targeted their
most advanced students. Like all writing centers, we welcome writers of various levels of ability to use our services, but the
deans believed their students needed something beyond a standard, one-to-one tutorial. On behalf of four departments—
business, environmental science, nursing, and divinity—we designed a series of discipline-specific writing workshops, or what
amounted to mini-courses, aimed at heightening their students’ awareness of the importance of writing in their disciplines,
familiarizing them with the types of genres they would be using, and either introducing them to or reminding them about princ iples of rhetoric and composition that would help them succeed as writers. In attempting to help these students negotiate th e
conventions of disciplinary writing, we not only gained some insights about writing in these disciplines but also built close r relationships with their students, professors, and deans. In this presentation, we will share some of the materials we develope d for
teaching these mini-courses and some of the lessons we learned that others may wish to use in their own institutional settings.
Thursday
B.10
E. A. POE
10:20 am — 11:30 am
SOW'S EARS AND SILK PURSES: SUSTAINING WRITING CENTERS IN TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES
Michael Pemberton, Georgia Southern University; Dean Hinnen, University of Texas-Arlington;
Carol Mohrbacher, St. Cloud State University
Presenters in this session will describe how, in spite of dramatic budget cuts to their home institutions, the writing center has
either emerged unscathed or transformed itself in positive ways. Pemberton will explain how staffing cuts at Georgia Southern
actually led to an increase in his writing center’s budget and expanded the scope of its teaching mission. Mohrbacher will describe her efforts as SCSU to take advantage of opportunities that underscored the writing center’s importance to disciplines,
programs, and administration, thereby strengthening its financial footing and providing important professional development
opportunities to graduate consultants. Hinnen will explain how his writing center at UTA has managed to escape most of the
budget cuts that have affected his institution, and how he has redoubled his efforts to demonstrate the center’s benefits to
multiple student cohorts and faculty in other academic units. Following these brief presentations, panelists will open the session to discussion and brainstorming, inviting audience members to share their experiences and suggest additional strategies to
circumvent, cope with, or overcome future budgetary pressures.
B. 11 PRATT A
Assessment & Evaluation/ Panel/ IWCA
CONSULTANTS’ ROLES IN WRITING CENTER ASSESSMENT
B.10—B.11
Tara Moore, Appalachian State University
As assessment influences university organization, administrators have been charged with the task of implementing and conducting direct and indirect measures for assessing the effectiveness of their individual units. The writing center is not immune.
Although writing center assessment is often delegated to administrators, consultants play a vital role in creating and administering assessment methods that develop new initiatives for writing center practices, which helps create a safe harbor for consultants and administrators alike. At Appalachian State, for example, consultants participate in conducting needs-based surveys,
observing and evaluating peer consultations, and interpreting results for both internal and external assessment methods. This
approach has many benefits. It encourages consultants to contribute to the fulfillment of their organization’s mission, as well as
to influence its direction; it balances authority among administrators and consultants, honoring the voice of all workers; and it
engages consultants in evaluating the writing center beyond the consultation. This panel invites participants to learn about our
initiatives to promote consultant involvement in assessment, and we will discuss both the strengths and the challenges we have
faced. Audience members will reflect on their own centers and contribute to a generative conversation about the role of consultants in writing center assessment.
Thursday
B.12
10:20 am — 11:30 am
PRATT B
NAVIGATING WEBS OF DISCOURSE
Cheryl Brown, Elizabeth Armstrong, and Shireen Canada, Towson University
In 1994, I was offered a position as Writing Center Director even though I had no Writing Center experience. I occasionally sent
my students to the Writing Center but didn’t really know what happened there; to me it seemed more a shady cove than safe
harbor. My graduate work provided me with a theoretical understanding of composition but did not help me figure out how to
work with the 15 sullen tutors I inherited. The Practical Tutor became my life jacket and training manual. That text, more than
any other, helped me to see how theory could become practice and led me to radically revise my pedagogy. Our panel will include a professor, a graduate student and an undergraduate student. We will describe a project in which graduate students
enrolled in a seminar entitled, Responding to and Evaluating Writing, tutor students in an undergraduate writing class. As the
graduate students read about the most effective ways of responding to student writing, they provide written feedback to the
undergraduates. The undergraduates construct the criteria by which the graduate students’ responses will be judged. We will
demonstrate the way that writing centers and writing classrooms can enact an effective pedagogical symbiosis.
LOOKING FOR A LIGHTHOUSE: AN ONGOING TRAINING MODEL FOR CONTINGENT ENVIRONMENTS
Jason Luther, Kiffen Dosch, and Janell Haynes, Syracuse University
B.13
PRESTON
MARKETING WRITING FELLOWS/MENTORS PROGRAMS
Trixie Smith and John Lauckner, Michigan State University; Jared Jay Featherstone, James Madison University;
Delma McLeod-Porter, McNeese State University
The facilitators of this roundtable have all started relatively new Writing Fellows or Mentors programs and are interested in
ways of advertising or marketing their new programs to faculty, students, and tutors who may wish to become Writing Mentors. They plan to share the methods they have used or planned in order to recruit course-assigned tutors such as targeting
potential consultants, dispelling myths, and reaching students through faculty recommendations and writing center coursework. They will also share methods they have used or planned in order to get the word out about their new programs, including student publications, brochures, email blasts, WC websites, branding campaigns, word of mouth, video promotions, and
alliances with administrators and department chairs. They also plan to invite session participants to share methods they have
tried or can envision for their centers as they open up both small- and large-group discussions about effective ways to market
Writing Fellows/Mentors programs.
B.12—B.13
Part-time labor, high turnover, and a complex, chaotic work environment makes coordinating ongoing training a difficult but
essential task for writing centers primarily staffed by professional and graduate consultants. This panel will present an elastic
professional development model that responds to such environments. In order to expand current writing center theory that
resists scripted approaches to tutor training, Speaker One will suggest that centers look to the field of technical communication,
which has recently theorized how learning functions in the networked, contingent workplace. Speaker Two will then explore
the labor politics at play when constructing and implementing such a flexible model, particularly when staff are contracted or
unionized. Speaker Three will argue that by tapping into consultants as organic intellectuals, with intimate knowledge of the
writing demands at our local institution, this model allows for the ongoing creation of a publicly-visible contribution to the larger campus community, while still valuing the chaotic and often-unrepresentable work writing centers do every day. Speakers
will provide handouts describing the model and examples of the materials produced by consultants working within it. They
will welcome questions, critiques, and conversation and will open the floor to discussion.
Thursday
B.14
10:20 am — 11:30 am
SCHAEFER
Assessment & Evaluation/ Individual/ IWCA
THE EFFECTS OF WORKING AS A PEER TUTOR ON COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS
Clint Gardner, Salt Lake Community College
Traditionally, assessment instruments of peer tutoring programs measured what student writers are learning sessions, or how
effective the tutors are in their work. The aim of such assessment is to determine the impact on the primary audience—the
student. The theory of peer tutoring is that both students learn from the situation. There is a measurable effect on both parties in the tutoring situation, not just on the student who is seeking tutoring. According to Bruffee “Peer tutoring made learning
a two-way street, since students’ work tended to improve when they got help from peer tutors and tutors learned from the
students they helped and from the activity of tutoring itself” (“Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’”) This presentation will focus on an often-overlooked subject of assessment: what the peer tutor learns and the impact that working as a
peer tutor has on one’s educational career and one’s life in general. Through use of recorded interviews and other assessment
instruments, the impact that working as a peer tutor has on community college students will be demonstrated. Methods others
can use to assess the impact of working as a peer tutor at their own institutions will also be reviewed.
“THEY HAVE DIFFICULTY REMOVING THEIR OWN IDEAS FROM IT” :
IDENTITY AND COMMUNITY IN A COLLEGE-WIDE WRITING ASSESSMENT
B.14—B.15
Angela Woodward, Edgewood College
My presentation focuses on a year-long writing assessment project I and a small group of faculty were asked to undertake as
our college launched a new gen ed curriculum that included more writing-intensive courses. In order to capture students’ experiences of writing, we conducted filmed interviews and focus groups. Using an excerpt of our finished film and analysis of
interview transcripts, I will discuss the ways students’ sense of their identity as writers is often in conflict with the writing tasks
assigned to them. What looks to instructors like a failure to write well is often in fact student resistance to an identIty they feel
is uncomfortable, dishonorable, or inauthentic. The premise of doing writing assessment as a film is that it provides a forum for
contrasting ideas about what writing is, does, and should be. Rather than resolve opposing views, it lets complexity flourish. I
will ask participants to consider whether the writing center is positioned to encourage complexity, and what that means as a
way of transforming culture and creating community.
B.15
WASHINGTON
DIRECTED LEARNING ACTIVITIES: CONNECTING THE CLASSROOM AND THE WRITING CENTER
Virginia Komenda and Melissa Berta, Orange Coast College
Directed Learning Activities (DLAs) are quickly becoming commonplace, especially in the community college writing center. This
workshop will discuss the benefits (and potential drawbacks) of DLAs and will help instructors and administrators see different
perspectives about what DLAs are, how to create them, and how to assign them to students. Most importantly, this workshop
will address the difficult issues of ensuring that DLAs are pedagogically sound and that they align themselves with the fundamental principles of a writing center. Dr. Melissa Berta (Title III Project Director, Orange Coast College Student Success Center)
and Virginia Komenda (Instructional Associate, Orange Coast College Student Success Center: Writing and Reading Center) will
present a short lecture on Orange Coast College’s DLA project and will share some insights that they have developed based on
their experiences and research. This lecture will help illuminate how DLAs benefit students, tutors, and faculty. After a short
lecture, Virginia Komenda will lead a workshop that allows participants to determine what student and faculty needs could be
targeted by DLAs, and participants will be given the opportunity to create outlines for potential DLAs. Participants are encouraged to bring copies of course outlines for classes in their departments.
11:45 AM—1:30 PM
LUNCH
ON YOUR OWN!
Thursday
C. 1
1:30 pm — 2:40 pm
ADAMS
TAKING THE WRITING CENTER INTO NEW TERRITORIES: THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF DEVELOPING A WRITING FELLOWS PROGRAM
Emily Hall and Brad Hughes, University of Wisconsin-Madison
As student writers and as undergraduate writing across the curriculum change, writing centers have wonderful opportunities to
develop and expand to meet the needs of students and professors across campus. One of the most effective ways writing centers can support a strong culture of writing is to develop a writing fellows (or curricular-based peer tutoring) program. But despite research that shows how effective such programs are at integrating writing center philosophies into actual classrooms
(e.g., On Location [2005] and a special issue of Across the Disciplines [2008]), too few writing centers have developed strong,
cross-curricular writing fellows programs. In this interactive workshop, the directors of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s
Writing Center and Writing Fellows program will facilitate a discussion of the philosophy and logistics of establishing an undergraduate Writing Fellows program--developing a proposal and pilot program; recruiting, selecting, and training new Fellows;
recruiting and collaborating with faculty; exploring options for funding; finding campus partners for financial, curricular, and
administrative support; and assessing the program’s effectiveness. Our focus throughout will be on how a writing fellows program can contribute to and expand the mission of a writing center on campus.
C. 2
CALHOUN
Research & Theory/ Fishbowl—Burkean Parlor/ IWCA
A BURKEAN PARLOR ON UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH IN AND ABOUT WRITING CENTERS
C.1—C.3
Christopher Ervin and Jane Fife, Western Kentucky University
In this session, two scholars with sustained interest in undergraduate research (UR) in and about writing centers invite participants to a Burkean parlor, a format that promises to facilitate engaging conversation and debate. Two initial positions prompt
the discussion: First, writing centers can promote cultures of undergraduate research by mentoring student writers as they prepare for conference presentation and submission for publication, as they leave the “safe harbor” of the classroom to the “rough
seas” of research conferences and interactions with journal editors. Interviews with student researchers highlight the difficulties inherent in this transition for student researchers, such as lack of confidence in writing and lack of awareness of venues for
publication. The second position complements the first: Undergraduate tutors are well-positioned to contribute to disciplinaryknowledge making and, in fact, should be expected to conduct, present, and publish research about literacy and composing
practices, one-to-one writing pedagogy, and writing center administration. Following the statements, which will be available to
conference participants through the IWCA website’s forum one week prior to the conference, the facilitators will invite discussants to the table, who will move the conversation forward as they rotate in and out of the conversation.
C. 3
D’ALESANDRO
Assessment & Evaluation/ Workshop/ IWCA
DEVISING ASSESSABLE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR WRITING CENTERS FROM THE "WPA OUTCOMES STATEMENT
ON FIRST-YEAR COMPOSITION"
William Macauley, Jr., The College of Wooster; Ellen Schendel, Grand Valley State University
Writing center assessment reports often must be contextualized for administrators, showing how one writing center’s work
draws upon best practices in the field. We can do this by connecting our centers’ assessable outcomes to the initiatives of our
professional organizations. In so doing, we give our writing centers the opportunity to be in conversation with the values and
best practices of composition studies while also providing a wider context in which to present our writing centers’ work to others. In this workshop, we will introduce participants to the WPA Outcomes Statement for First Year Composition and describe
why it is a useful resource in building student learning outcomes for writing center assessment plans. Most of the session will be
spent in discussion of the Outcomes Statement and building writing center learning outcomes from it, along with qualitative
and quantitative methods of assessing those outcomes. Workshop materials will include: A worksheet that helps participants
to move from the Outcomes Statement to their own assessable outcomes; copies of assessment plans from the workshop facilitators’ writing centers, which show how to move from the Outcomes Statements to local values in devising student learning
outcomes; and a bibliography.
Thursday
C. 4
HOPKINS
1:30 pm — 2:40 pm
The Writing Center & the Community/ Panel/ IWCA
SHELTER FROM THE STORM: A SAFE SPACE FOR HIGH SCHOOL WRITERS IN A COLLEGE WRITING CENTER
Clyde Moneyhun, Boise State University; Patti Henlon-Baker and Katie Rosman, Stanford University
Try imagining a place where it's always safe and warm.
Come in, she said, I'll give you shelter from the storm. (Bob Dylan)
High school writers, particularly those from at-risk populations, often report writing to be a dangerous, frightening activity.
Their metaphors for the activity sometimes betray attitudes in keeping with this year’s IWCA/NCPTW theme: they are “at sea,”
“in stormy waters,” “drowning.” We direct three different outreach projects from our writing center that seek to give high
school writers “shelter from the storm.” Our first speaker will discuss Project W.R.I.T.E., which for the past ten years has
brought 25 students from local high schools to our center for all the Saturdays of our winter quarter to write, share their writing, produce a publication, and stage a reading of their work. The second speaker will describe a program we are now reviving
after several years of hibernation, the Stanford Anthology for Youth, which offers a series of in-service writing workshops to
local high schools aimed at helping students produce writing for another annual publication. The third speaker will talk about
Ravenswood Writes, a four-year project that helped three local high schools create their own writing centers.
C. 5
JEFFERSON
NEGOTIATING VALUES: EVALUATING PRIORITIES WHILE NAVIGATING NEW WATERS
Keri Bertino, Baruch College
This session will investigate how issues of audience called into question some of the pedagogical values that seemed central to
the work of one writing center when it entered the process of creating a new online publication of student writing. Using excerpts from two very different versions of this online publication, and the texts that resulted from the publication process
(acceptance and rejection letters, editorial feedback to students, edits large and small, and drafts of revisions), we will isolate
moments where choices were made and analyze what those choices tell us about our most strongly-held priorities. We will
examine the values that were clarified and strengthened during this process, the unexpected conflicts that arose between values that had previously co-existed in harmony, and the reasons why some values were thrown overboard.
Audience members will be invited throughout to reflect on how they would prioritize values and goals--such as non-directive
teaching and commenting, celebrating student writing, creating new opportunities for outreach, and presenting a professional
face to the university--and question for themselves when the ends justify the means.
TS.1
INTERNATIONAL D
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER (LGBT) SIG
Harry Denny, Jay Sloan, Trixie Smith, and Neil Simpkins
C.4—C.5
What happens when a writing center that claims to celebrate student writing rejects student work for publication? What does
it mean when a writing center that "does not proofread" copy edits student writing?
Thursday
C.6
1:30 pm — 2:40 pm
Technology/ Lightning Talk/ IWCA
LAN HO! RIDING THE WAVE OF ONLINE WRITING TUTORING
Nichole Bennett-Bealer, Northampton Community College
Writing tutoring is no longer harbored in physical centers alone. The creation of online writing labs, online synchronous tutorials, podcasts, and Second Life Writing Centers has digitized the work we do. With so many established online writing supports
it may seem easier to link to existing resources rather than creating our own. However, Local Area Networks of support need to
be founded in the audience, needs, and contexts of our individual campuses as well. Together we will explore the various technologies we are implementing to bridge the shrinking gulf between the real and virtual tutoring world, discuss theories of online
tutoring, share methods for training and supervising online tutoring, and discuss the future wave of technology in the center.
What technology do we need to incorporate into our centers? What technology would we create for our centers? The presenter will provide a bibliography of resources on online tutoring and facilitate the discussion. Participants will be asked to
share their experiences with online writing tutoring and hypothesize the future of technology in our centers.
Diversity/ Lightning Talk/ IWCA
ARE WE DIVERSE? RETHINKING THE MEANING OF DIVERSITY IN OUR CENTERS
C.6—C.7
Sydney Richardson, Salem College
This lightning talk will discuss the need for writing center administrators and staff to expand their definition of “diversity.” At
the moment, diversity mainly centers on race, class, gender and religion, yet student bodies represent more than these four
characteristics. If writing center administrators and staff want to be diverse, then their centers should represent the entire student body. This includes international students, adult students, ESL students, students from disciplines outside of English, etc. If
writing center staff move beyond the “traditional” writing center tutor (American, 18-22 years old, English literature major) and
acknowledge the benefits tutors with various backgrounds aside from race, class, gender and religion, a more complete version
of “diversity” could take form and possibly allow all students to have their needs met.
C.7
BROADENING HORIZONS: PEER TUTORS COLLABORATE WITH CHEMISTRY PROFESSORS CHROMATOGRAPHY ASSIGNMENT
Eddie DeHerrerra and Kevin McCurdy, Kansas State University
Peer Tutors at the K-State at Salina Writing Center have worked collaboratively with Chemistry Professor Dr. Jung Oh over the
past five years to develop a unit on chromatography. At the end of each year, tutors and faculty meet to discuss the strengths
and weakness of assignment guidelines. The collaboration has resulted in a dynamic learning experience for students, faculty,
and tutors. Students process scientific content as well-written lab reports and thoughtful summary/analyses. In this panel session peer tutors will highlight ongoing collaborative efforts between themselves, faculty, and students. Their presentation will
showcase how writing centers can help faculty develop assignment guidelines in ways that promote information literacy and
lifelong learning.
Thursday
C.8
1:30 pm — 2:40 pm
MCKELDON The Writing Center within the University & Institution and within the Community/ Roundtable/ IWCA
WE'RE DIFFERENT: SECONDARY WRITING CENTERS "TWEAK" UNIVERSITY MODELS
Tom Brandt, Berkeley Preparatory School; Pam Childers, McCallie School; Jeanette Jordan, Glenbrook North High School;
Maggie Shea, Minnetonka High School
Since the 1970’s, secondary school teachers have used existing college/university model writing centers to create their own
centers. As new models have developed in the 21st century through Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing Fellows
programs with Classroom-Based Tutoring (CBT), as well as community service initiatives, secondary school writing center directors have continued to learn from those in higher education. Additionally, K-12 schools face mandates such as Response to Intervention (RtI) that present both opportunities and challenges in the development of a writing center identity. Secondary
school writing center directors have incorporated various aspects of the above programs to better serve their communities; however, because of the age of students, scheduling issues, and other institutional and curriculum demands, each school
must create its own unique identity as a writing center. This session will involve a dialogue among four secondary school writing center directors who have adapted and adopted university models at their own institutions, often in collaboration with universities and other institutions. The presenters will challenge participants to collaborate with nearby institutions, to work with
higher education and regional and international organizations, and to re-imagine ways of developing a writing center for their
own institutions.
C.9
MENCKEN
LEARNING (IN SYNC) HO! MAPPING AND EXPLORING WRITING CLASSROOM/CENTER TRADE ROUTES
Steven Corbett, Heather Brady, Stephanie Serenita, and Justin Short, Southern Connecticut State University;
Neal Lerner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Writing center folks have learned much about theory and practice in one-to-one and small-group writing instruction that can
continue to help writing instructors navigate individualized and classroom instruction across curricular waters. But what have
we done about it? In the first part of this roundtable the facilitators will outline a (very) brief history of peer teaching from the
Roman classroom up to modern writing center and writing fellows programs. Next we will break the audience up into small
groups to discuss the pros and cons of recent scholarship from those like Beth Boquet and Neal Lerner (College English, 2008)
who argue that the pedagogical trade routes for practice and scholarship between peer tutoring programs and writing classrooms are only beginning to be mapped and should be explored much further. Audience members (by now fully active fellow
ship-mate presenters!) will share their experiences with venturing from the safe writing center harbors of their respective campuses, out into classrooms and other tutoring locations. Groups will reconvene with multiple conclusions and recommendations
for the many ways to (Captains) courageously unleash the floodgates of synergistic teaching and learning—in the center, in the
classroom, and causeways in-between—that await the adventurous and the bold!
C.8—C.9
Melissa Nicolas, Drew University; Michelle LaFrance, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth,
Thursday
C.10
E. A. POE
1:30 pm — 2:40 pm
The Writing Centers within the University/Institution/ Technology/ Panel/ IWCA
SURFING A TSUNAMI OF STUDENT BLOGGING: SHAMELESS COLLEGE MARKETING AND/OR ESSENTIAL CAREER PREPARATION?
Robert Clark, Quin Acciani, Sarah Schukraft, and Melinda Wilson, LIM College
Faculty and students spur discussion by exploring conflicts and collaborations now that the web hosts student writing as well as
college marketing by Admissions, Advancement/Communications departments. Millennial students often write far more for
social networking sites than for college essays and exams. Colleges see this writing as a marketing tool and “authentic” student expression. LIM College, (MBA-granting college centered on the business of fashion) students must master social-network
marketing. As rising business leaders aware of corporate responsibility in the flamboyant and creative fashion industry, they
must also master critical thinking about hype, spin, racism, sexism and youth culture. Presenters will draw on theory about
rhetoric, media and politics (Lakoff, Postman) and present student blogs written for LIM College and by students promoting
their own businesses on their own initiative. We address NCPTW and IWCA concerns about student writing and peer tutoring:
one student presenter is a fashion model and blogger, another student posts interviews with entrepreneur classmates. Faculty
and students collaborate to develop a discussion context including online writing pedagogy (the Kairos and Praxis research journals) yet keep the presentation fun in the tradition of the image-rich and irreverent fashion industry.
C.11
PRATT A
Diversity/ Panel/ IWCA
THE SUBVERSIVE CENTER: ANTI-RACIST ACTIVISM AND THE WORK OF WRITING CENTERS
C.10—C.12
Frankie Condon, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Mike Kelly, Champlain College; Vershawn Ashanti Young, University of Iowa
The speakers on this panel pursue lines of writing center scholarship initiated by Nancy Grimm, among others. We argue that
rather than being too marginalized within the academy to engage an activist, subversive stance against the racially charged promotion of “standard” academic discourse, writing centers can and are, in fact, institutionally well-positioned to take up such
work. Speaker One lays both theoretical and ethical foundations for writing centers as sites for anti-racist activism. She traces
the outlines of a race-critical ethics in and through which writing centers might begin to conceive of themselves as sites for antiracist activism. Speaker Two examines the institutional situatedness of writing centers and suggests ways and means by which
writing centers might build relationships of alliance and solidarity within our institutions, not only across disciplines also but
with anti-racist student organizations, faculty networks, and with supportive administrators in support of activist writing centers
committed to the work of anti-racism. Speaker Three critiques code-switching as a meaningful and performative resisting
stance toward “standard” academic discourse. Instead, Speaker Three offers and adapts for writing center scholars and practitioners a conceptual frame and attending practices for code-meshing, an term developed and theorized by Vershawn Ashanti
Young in his 2007 monograph, Your Average Nigga: Performing Race, Literacy, and Masculinity.
C.12
PRATT B
SEXUALITY, LANGUAGE AND RACE AS “SAFE HARBORS” IN THE WRITING CENTER
Reva Sias, Candace R. Epps-Robertson, and Amber Luce, Syracuse University
In response to Victor Villanueva’s 2005 International Writing Centers Association keynote address, “Blind: Talking About the
New Racism,” this presentation recognizes the fact that Writing Centers should serve as “Safe Harbors,” spaces that empower
and promote diversity. In the ‘safe harbor’ of the Writing Center, academic discussions and invention may lend to an appreciation for multiple identities, cultural rhetorics, and voices by creating moments of peer interaction that allow students to discuss
matters of gender, sexuality, language differences, race, and ethnicity. As counter-narratives to hegemonic ideologies that are
anchored by intolerance and omissions, Speaker One will navigate safe harbors as a distinctive spatial component to the rhetorical situation by inquiring what tutors are to make of moments of homophobia in the Writing Center. Speaker Two will steer
administrators toward practices to support peer tutors of linguistically diverse student populations. Speaker Three will chart a
course for inclusion of race, ethnicity, and vernacular differences, which are often capsized by calls for standardization and writing correctness. Given the fact that students seek safe passage within the Writing Center, our theoretical and pedagogical approaches should represent calm waters for all voices.
Thursday
1:30 pm — 2:40 pm
C. 13 PRESTON
THE IDEA OF (COLLABORATING IN) A WRITING CENTER: CRITICAL APPROACHES TO WRITING CENTER PEDAGOGY
Margaret Poncin, Javaria Afghani, and Tom McNamara, DePaul University
Presenters in this roundtable session will discuss the [mis]perception of the writing center as a "safe harbor" for collaborative
learning. They will critically examine current tutoring practices from various theoretical perspectives, including feminist, queer,
post-colonial, social constructionist, and analogical approaches. Using these perspectives, the presenters will provide their interpretations of what may be keeping writing center work from being "more" collaborative and will suggest several alternative
tutoring models as possible solutions to some of the issues they raise. Audience participants will also be asked to share and discuss possible approaches for navigating toward improved collaborative practices and pedagogy in the writing center.
C.14
SCHAEFER
ONLINE WCS—IN FAIR WIND AND FOUL
Tim Guymon, Vicky Hatch, Kristopher Kelly, and Heather Lunsford, University of Phoenix
C.15
WASHINGTON
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy / Workshop/ IWCA
HANDS-ON APPROACHES TO 21ST-CENTURY WRITING CENTER LITERACIES
Sue Mendelsohn, Saint Louis University
The exigencies of new media composing demand that writing centers address the traditional literacies of reading and visual
design in new ways. Most writing center administrators and consultants have little training in either, so this workshop presents
activities that apply 21st-century reading and design principles in the writing consultation. Part I. Critics have charged that habitual Web-based reading renders readers passive and strips them of their deep reading skills even as those readers are interactive, involved Web participants. This odd combination shapes texts for readers in ways traditional authors didn’t intend. It also
informs students’ perceptions of writing and what it means. Using Web versions of traditional texts, participants will explore an
alternative route to understanding text—and an alternative way to reach student writers. Part II. The second half will mix theory and practice to develop a writing center-specific visual design pedagogy. Building on the approaches of Jackie Grutsch
McKinney and artist Josef Albers, the workshop will take an inductive approach--rather than McKinney's deductive approach-demonstrating a method for deriving visual design principles through experience. Using short visual exercises about color, balance, text, and unity, participants will develop design concepts and then explore them in groups by creating basic designs.
C.13—C.15
The SS CWE (Center for Writing Excellence) at the University of Phoenix is a unique ship in the writing center world. With
400,000 students on land and across the seas, the University of Phoenix ship SS CWE helps students scrape the barnacles off
their writing. Students embark on an incredible voyage on the SS CWE through the fair and foul winds of writing. Several tutorials, grammar guides, and electronic services act as their compass, including WritePoint (an automated writing review) and
tutor review. Instead of students interacting with tutors face-to-face, all communication between students and tutors takes
place online. This roundtable discussion will navigate the oceans of CWE. The four participant cruise directors will guide attendees through the squalls and doldrums of online writing help with the following interactive elements:
 Rigging CWE content
 Navigating currents of technology
 Answering Mayday calls
 Battening down the hatches
 Raising the halyard of academic writing
Through their travels on the SS CWE, students are able to empty the bilge of old writing habits to follow the buoys that guide
the way to better writing. Attendees at the roundtable discussion will have an excellent view from the crow’s nest about the
operation of the SS CWE.
Thursday
D.1
ADAMS
2:50 pm — 4:00 pm
The Writing Center & the Community/ Workshop/ IWCA
WALKING THE PLANK: ENGAGING STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND PARENTS BEYOND THE CENTER
Ellen Foley, Niles West High School; Katherine Gillies, Niles North High School
The walls of a center can provide safe harbor for many, but often it is necessary to reach beyond those walls. Students are often
reluctant to come to the center, faculty and administration can be misinformed about the work of the center or jealous of its
resources, and parents and community members can be oblivious to its existence. In this workshop, two Literacy Center Staff
members, a Literacy Coach and a Reading Specialist, will give details about the new and innovative ways they facilitate meaningful outreach. From programs like “Rent-a-Tutor” to Small Learning Communities for Teachers to Freshman Parent Night, these
two presenters will provide a wide array of programs that have been successful at spreading the good work of the center and
making the center an invaluable asset to the school community. Participants will be given an opportunity to work collaboratively
to create new possibilities for their own centers.
D.2
CALHOUN
TWIN POLESTARS: NAVIGATING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
D.1—D.3
Vainis Aleksa, Lindsey Marshall, Lydia Saravia, Charitianne Williams, and Alex Wulff, University of Illinois at Chicago
By reconfiguring the traditional elements of writing center pedagogy, writing centers can embrace both social justice and institutional responsibility. Embracing these "twin polestars" makes it possible to navigate the new currents of higher education that
many of us in large, urban, public institutions find ourselves: renewed forces of racism, belligerent attitudes towards student
literacy, and the dictates of an increasingly popular business model of education, which calls for measurable outcomes, funding
accountability, inter-disciplinary cooperation, and uniform standards of practice. This panel presents perspectives on a writing
center’s effort not only to navigate a mission of social justice and added institutional demands, but to find a new direction for
our work. We will reconsider and offer to revise the following traditional ideas: the writing center as a space opposing the classroom, the tutor as divorced from first year writing instruction, dialogue as a dichotomy of writer and tutor, the pro-learning environment as defined by voices of dominant culture, and measurable outcomes as counterproductive.
D.3
D’ALESANDRO
Specific Student or Tutor Populations / Workshop/ IWCA
THAR BE DRAGONS:
LOOKING FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN A COMBINED WRITING CENTER/WRITING ABOUT WRITING APPROACH
Jennifer Wells, Mercy High School
How many times have those in writing centers either said, or heard others say, that students, “Should have learned this already!”
In fact, students may have learned “this” but as Perkins and Salomon (1999) explain, knowledge transfer is often tacitly assumed
to happen on its own, when it usually doesn’t. The emerging “Writing About Writing” curriculum attempts to address problems
of knowledge transfer. In a WAW class, the subject is writing, or writing studies, itself. However, there hasn’t yet been an examination of what might happen when a WAW course joins forces with a writing center.
This workshop will explore this question in a two-fold manner. First, the facilitator will first share early results from a study of a
high school course* that combined Writing About Writing pedagogy with peer tutor training. Second, the facilitator will lead
both large and small group discussions of the “nuts and bolts” of such a hybrid course: assignments, readings, training activities,
evaluation, and problem solving. Participants will leave with ideas about how a complementary WAW/Writing Center approach
to teaching writing at the high school (or college level) may facilitate better transfer between courses or institutions.
Thursday
D.4
2:50 pm — 4:00 pm
HOPKINS
Technology/ Roundtable/ IWCA
NAVIGATING THE ONLINE WORLD
Diane Dowdey, Sam Houston University; Linda Coblentz, University of Houston; Martha Dale Cooley, Henderson University;
Frances Crawford and Jon McCarter, San Antonio College; Carolyn Kinslow, Cameron University
A roundtable session will focus on re-envisioning online writing center services. The first facilitator will begin by establishing
the ways our community believes that face-to-face writing center sessions are successful tutoring sessions. The audience will
be divided into small groups. The facilitators will ask the following questions to the groups: What is the purpose of an online
writing center? Does the online writing center tutoring session need to have similar elements as the face-to-face session in
order to be successful? What elements are necessary for the online session be successful? Several facilitators will lead the
next section, illustrating the Second Life, a 3-D immersive, virtual world, or other synchronous online tutoring that their writing
centers use, such as Camtasia and Connect, and the distinct elements these platforms provide for online tutoring, including
building a rapport, communicating through body language and visual representation, collaborating with the student, and following general writing center pedagogy. The final facilitator will talk about how the Second Life services her writing center
uses initiated the reshaping of her institution’s campus culture. All of the facilitators will conclude the roundtable session by
discussing how students have responded to online services and answering the questions of audience members.
D.5
INTERNATIONAL D
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Individual/ IWCA
OUTREACH WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY: SUCCESSFULLY NAVIGATING THE WATERS OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Janine Carlock, University of Pittsburgh
SAFE HAVEN OR CITY HALL?: THE WRITING CENTER'S ROLE IN UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION
Emily Walker Heady and Allison Scoles, Liberty University
As writing centers prove adapt to the changing needs of 21st-century students and campuses, so also can their place within
the University's structure become more prominent. On the campus of Liberty University, a Christian institution in Lynchburg,
VA, with a residential student enrollment of 12,000 and an online enrollment of over 50,000, the traditional writing center has
had to flex and bend to meet shifting demands. As it has done so, the influence of the University Writing Program has markedly increased. Specifically, the writing center has begun to take a key role in all of the following areas:
 Adapting traditional student services for an online learning format
 Developing non-traditional services to meet the needs of diverse student groups
 Distinguishing between graduate and undergraduate student populations and learning styles
 Steering the University's developmental writing curriculum, and
 Spearheading many of the University's assessment and accreditation compliance initiatives.
This presentation will focus on the ways in which, by meeting the needs and creating safe spaces for the varying sectors of the
campus community, the University Writing Program has become more central to the campus.
D.4—D.5
The winds of change are sweeping across the Engineering profession. Writing, traditionally considered a nuisance at best in
this profession, has over the past decade become an important part of engineering programs in the US. In response, several
articles have been written about how to effectively incorporate a writing component into the engineering curriculum at the
undergraduate level. In this presentation, I will discuss the how at the University of Pittsburgh over the past 10 years our Writing Center has successfully navigated the (sometimes shark-infested) waters of the School of Engineering to create a successful
partnership. In exploring the waters of non-Arts and Sciences missions, curricula, goals and scholarship, the Writing Center,
true to its fluid nature, has actually become a part of these waters. As a result, engineering students can easily enter the Writing Center’s pools and eddies. Our Freshman Engineering Writing Program has served to strengthen the Writing Center’s relationship with the university and successfully bridged the straits, too often seen as unnavigable, between academic territories.
Thursday
D.6
2:50 pm — 4:00 pm
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Lightning Talk/ IWCA
THEORY MATTERS
Nathalie Singh-Corcoran and Benjamin Myers, West Virginia University; Mary Inks, Pennsylvania State University, Fayette
What does it mean to be a good tutor, and what should be included in tutor training courses? We come at this question from tw o
perspectives: the Writing Center Director's and the Peer Tutor's. From our research and our experience, we find that training courses
cover a mix of writing center practice and theory. Tutor training texts like Ryan and Zimmerelli's The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors
cover the how-to's of working one-on-one with students while other texts like Murphy and Sherwood's The St. Martin's Book for
Writing Tutors cover the why or the theory behind writing center pedagogy. On the surface, texts like these should work hand -inhand. However, we find that when we engage in tutor training, tutors resist the theory, particularly theory that complicate t he act of
tutoring and/or the tutor's role. Our Lightning Talks are designed to answer the question we pose above. Nathalie Singh-Corcoran
will take the perspective of the Administrator and discuss why theory is important in tutor training while Mary Inks and Benj amin
Myers will take the tutor's perspective and discuss the resistance. We will then divide into discussion groups to explore wha t should
be included in tutor training and why. We will come back together as a whole and share our collective conversations.
D.7
FORM AND EXPECTATION IN MUSIC, VISUAL ART, POETRY, AND PROSE
Byron Stay and Carl Glover, Mount St. Mary’s University; Pam Childers, The McCallie School; Claire Marie Moblard; Malcolm Childers
D.6—D.8
Music, visual art, poetry and prose make use of rich avenues of form and expectation to create meaning. Composition in all communication arts employs form to set up expectations in the mind of the audience. Sometimes, as in the sonata, the forms are concrete and follow established patterns of structure and harmony. Other times, as in blues and jazz, the forms are fluid but still follow
systems of harmony which allow the musicians and the audience to create transitions and fulfill promises. On a very basic level,
scale steps lead through melodic progression while chords “pull” the listener through harmonic progression. In each case, music
establishes a series of expectations that lead meaningfully from note to note, from chord to chord, from passage to passage. So it
is also with fine art. In this session participants will have an opportunity to respond visually and verbally to the connections among
music, visual art and written languages. Presenters will demonstrate the parallels among music, art, poetry improvisation, piano,
voice, wind instruments, and harmonic progression, and improvisation. At the end of the session the presenters will demonstrate
how the musicians themselves become their own audience when they improvise just as the artist and writer become their own
audience. The audience will be further engaged in the presentation by being asked to participate in the demonstrations.
D.8
JEFFERSON
WHO’S LINE IS IT ANYWAY? STARRING KARL MARX, MICHAEL DE CERTEAU, THE WRITER, AND YOU
Joy Bancroft, University of Kansas
“Product” and “process” are words bandied about within the realm of composition studies, but in the writing center world, these
words take on a different meaning when considered in light of Marxist critical theory. I suggest that the writers’ product-based
motivations reflect our capitalist society that commodifies anything and everything, even the services of the writing center. Using Michael de Certeau’s terms, I consider the “strategies” that writers actively use to direct the tutorial process toward a product and the “tactics” that the tutors must employ in return to de-commodify the session. I ask whether using a Marxist lens and
these labels can generate discussion about the writing center as a commodified location and whether this might lend insight into
our roles as tutors. After foregrounding my pilot research project, I will ask the audience to break into groups and generate examples of ways writers attempt to direct sessions and how tutors can counter those attempts. I will then set up a scenario of a
consultation, acting as a writer who wants to keep the session product-focused. I will ask someone to volunteer as the tutor and
to counter my strategies with tactics that will direct the tutorial back towards the process of learning. To make this more involved, I’ll use the improv game of tag—whenever someone has an idea or sees that the scene needs enlivening, he or she can
yell “freeze!” and take the place of either the writer or the tutor.
Thursday
D.9
2:50 pm — 4:00 pm
MCKELDON
MAPPING PRIVILEGE AND THE POLITICS OF OPPRESSION THROUGH/IN WRITING CENTERS:
TOWARD AN EMPIRICAL AGENDA TO GUIDE ACTIVISM AND RESEARCH
Harry Denny, St. John’s University of New York; Jackson Brown, Stephen S. Austin State University; Kerri Mulqueen, Nazarene
High School, Brooklyn, New York; Andrew Rihn and Jay Sloan, Kent State-Stark
D.10
MENCKEN
Ethical Issues in Tutoring & Writing/ Roundtable/ IWCA
HARBORING SPIES OF ALL KINDS: ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN THE EXPANDING ROLE OF THE WC
Mary Odom, Christine Ghattas, Rachel Greil, Imani Marshall, Jared Miller, Michael Ruther, and Robert Rockett; Kennesaw
State University
While collections such as The Writing Center Director’s Resource Book and articles in Writing Lab Newsletter and Writing Center Journal occasionally address ethical issues in the writing center, the broader ethical implications of our work as tutors and
administrators remain largely untheorized and unresolved. Early writing center literature about ethics focused on peer tutoring (for example, Lichtenstein’s 1983 WCJ article). More recent scholarship has expanded this focus to special populations of
tutees (Farrell, Pemberton) and online environments (Baker), but we still too infrequently explore ethical implications beyond
the safer harbor of one-to-one tutorials – an important task given the fact that writing centers today can fulfill many roles
within the university. As a site that may train teaching assistants, share the workload of ESOL or International Student Centers,
and support Writing Programs, the inadvertent “spying” that can occur in a writing center is significant. We learn about faculty, student populations, and even other campus centers, and we then are left to ponder what to do with this inadvertent
espionage. Each roundtable presenter will illustrate one “spy” scenario in which writing center ethics must be considered;
participants will then collaborate in efforts to theorize and develop action plans for such issues.
D.9—D.10
Theory around the teaching of writing has long drawn attention to the role identity plays in the construction (and contesting)
of self and community. Our schools, colleges and universities, proxies themselves for larger institutional and social forces,
don’t just bank students with disciplinary knowledge and practices; they also train students in the rituals of everyday citizenship in the professions and beyond, ways of doing and being that signify larger social and cultural dynamics that position people with wide-ranging symbolic and material consequences. As units that are wholly implicated in these forces, writing centers
are unique sites in their execution, and the people who traverse them as tutors, consultants, directors, or other professional
staffers are interested agents. We present a face and voice to institutions and often embed our pedagogy with their goals and
outcomes (in addition to our own), yet we don’t name and own how those beliefs and practices might run contrary to our clients—often our students—and their individual and collective identities, literacies, and sociocultural practices. Leading writing
center scholars advocate that writing center practitioners understand ourselves not as apologists for larger forces at play on
clients (nor as unwitting transmitters of those forces to them), but as activist-mentors driven to bridge pedagogical divides and
as learners ourselves committed to dialogic education as a means for empowerment. This round table takes up that conversation and works to move it (and our audience) beyond consciousness raising and toward a tangible, politically-engaged, and
sustainable research agenda in a variety of contexts.
Thursday
D.11
E. A. POE
2:50 pm — 4:00 pm
A RISING TIDE LIFTS ALL BOATS: ALLIANCES & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN WRITING CENTER WORK
Lori A. Salem, Temple University; Michele Eodice, University of Oklahoma
D.11
John F. Kennedy’s famous line, “a rising tide lifts all boats,” made an economic metaphor out of a nautical truth. Rising water
literally lifts boats, but does the larger metaphor hold true? Are there forces (economic growth, political alliances) that “lift”
everyone, or is the sensation of “lift” just a question of where one sits? In this presentation, we use a quantitative analysis to
fuel our hunches about the nature of progress and strength in writing center work. What forces have the potential to “elevate”
writing centers or writing center directors? And from whose perspective will the lift be visible? We will begin by presenting the
results of a survey administered at the 2009 and 2010 IWCA Summer Institutes. The survey queried SI participants’ attitudes and
beliefs about the “goals” of writing centers, as well as their own professional goals and interests. The data was analyzed using
statistical techniques that are designed for studying attitudes. The results surprised us. The participants envisioned markedly
different directions for writing center work, and they had markedly different notions of what “lifting all boats” might look like.
The differences were fundamentally about communities: the respondents imagined different alliances for their work—alliances
with the national field of writing center researchers, with upper-administrators on their own campuses, and with other disciplines. We (two speakers) describe the ways those different alliances are chosen and how professional development activity
might impact economic forces and progress in writing center work.
Thursday
D.12
PRATT A
2:50 pm — 4:00 pm
Technology/ Individual/ IWCA
A NEW GRASSROOTS EFFORT: FREEING OUR SPACES OF BULKY WORKBOOKS FOR ON-LINE ALTERNATIVES
Angela Messenger, Youngstown State University
Our Writing Center at Youngstown State University still houses grammar workbooks, such as Grassroots: The Writer’s Workbook by Fawcett and Sandberg. Now in our 36th year, we have collected many titles, including full classroom sets. I propose
to review the aforementioned grammar workbooks that have moved with the Writing Center even to its sixth location across
campus. While these hard copies may be “safe harbors,” these tools are likely limited compared to online options.
RECURSIVE INSCRIPTION AND REINSCRIPTION: UTILIZING CHAT TECHNOLOGY FOR NON-DIRECTIVE ONLINE WRITING TUTORING
Jason R. Carney, Case Western Reserve University
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Individual/ IWCA
CULTIVATING PRACTICAL WISDOM THROUGH BLOGS AND TUTOR TRAINING: HARBORS FOR ENACTING PHRONESIS
Tim Taylor, Eastern Illinois University
As scholars have discussed in regard to writing studies and writing center work (Baer, Barrios, Brooke, Graupner, Grutsch
McKinney, Krause, et al.), blogs offer venues for practitioners to interact, problem solve, and reflect on their praxis. In this
presentation, I will concisely introduce and explain the ancient rhetorical concept of phronesis (practical wisdom), especially
how it’s integral to Isocratian and Aristotelian rhetoric. Using the blog that our writing center has used since the spring semester of 2009, I will then examine the posts of writing consultants and directors to connect how writing center blogs can
reflect phronesis. The presentation will conclude with a discussion of what directors need to consider when using blogs, and I
will propose additional activities that can cultivate practical wisdom in writing centers. In sum, I will argue that phronesis is a
core concept and that the use of a blog is a core activity directors should implement in tutor training.
D.12
Online writing consultation mediated via chat programs is a difficult though promising pedagogical challenge, a challenge of
more relevance and importance as university writing centers seek to expand the services offered to students beyond the
physical constraints of the classroom and tutor-table and onto the virtual context of the internet. Little has been written
about the contingencies, limits, and potentialities of chat technology utilized in the service of writing tutoring. Thus, writing
tutors who find themselves tentatively attempting to use this technology are forced to proceed experimentally, developing
strategies as they proceed. My presentation will take as its core object of analysis the transcript of a particularly successful
online writing tutoring session that focused on thesis development. In the course of this analysis, I will attempt to identify a
pedagogical pattern that emerges, a pattern of inscription and reinscription that is clearly appropriate for the virtual context,
the technological and discursive limits of online and non-directive writing tutoring. As will be narrativized in the presentation,
the tutee inscribed, and I reinscribed, and then the tutee reinscribed that re-inscription recursively. In this way I hope to articulate a specific pedagogical strategy that can be utilized by online writing tutors.
Thursday
D.13
PRATT B
2:50 pm — 4:00 pm
CHARTING A NEW COURSE: ONE UNIVERSITY'S PILOTING OF NEW COLLABORATION AND INITIATIVES
Laurie Cella and Karen Johnson, Shippensburg University
How does one get a writing center off the ground on a shoestring budget when the position of a writing support administrator has remained vacant for a few years? When Johnson began her tenure as the Associate Director of the Learning
Center and supervisor of writing support, there was no substantial link to the English department; as the new Composition
Director, Cella lamented this lack of connection. Cella knew that good communication between the English department
and the writing center leads to useful collaborations and improved tutoring services for students. This year, Johnson and
Cella have navigated a series of unique collaborations and brand new initiatives: instituting a new Secondary English Education tutor program, developing service-learning opportunities that involve both the English department and the writing
center, and beginning a team-taught Tutor Practicum class (Spring 2011). This roundtable discussion will share how these
departments have strengthened connections, combined resources, and improved services for students by using creative
strategies to form solutions. Following this discussion, the audience will share similar solutions to creating stronger ties to
writing centers and improving services for students.
D.14
PRESTON
Specific Student or Tutor Populations / Workshop/ IWCA
AN EXTRA MAP FOR NAVIGATING CULTURAL WAVES: INTERNATIONAL STUDENT WORKSHOPS AS A WRITING CENTER SERVICE
D.13—D.14
Megan Dortch and Summer Wayhan, Texas A&M University
Through the winds of stylistic differences and around the rocks of grammatical exceptions, international students often
struggle to navigate the cultural waves of writing and communicating in the US. In the fall of 2007, the Texas A&M Writing
Center began offering a series of workshops as an additional resource for our international students. These weekly, hourlong International Student Workshops focus on topics such as “American Conversational Communication,” “Editing for
Style and Grammar,” and “How to Construct an Argument.” Collectively, they serve as an interactive map with which students can navigate their writing concerns alongside each other and consultants.
We would like to share the focus and structure of our workshops as an example for other Writing Centers. We will share
how our workshops have developed over the past several years, the challenges we’ve faced while implementing them,
and the feedback we’ve received from students. Our presentation will include interview clips with both previous workshop
instructors and participants, and we will provide handouts outlining our presentation. In addition to encouraging questions, we will also encourage other Writing Centers to share examples of similar services they offer.
D.15
SCHAEFER
Research & Theory/ Individual/ IWCA
MINIMALIST TUTORING AND ENLIGHTENMENT: READING JEFF BROOKS ALONGSIDE IMMANUEL KANT
Christopher P. Graves, University of Houston – Clear Lake
My proposal is focused on a comparative analysis of Jeff Brooks’ “Minimalist Tutoring: Making Students Do All the Work”
and Immanuel Kant’s “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” First, I want to argue that the writing center
as Brooks envisions it functions much like the public sphere in Kant’s text: both are free spaces marked by the absence of
authority, allowing inhabitants to freely cultivate their powers of understanding. Second, I will show that it is out of this
absence that Brooks advances the practice of minimalist tutoring, a practice whose goal is closely aligned with what Kant
sees as the product of an unrestricted public sphere: an independent, enlightened citizenry. My proposal is significant in
its contribution to writing center theory because it will move beyond the directive/non-directive pedagogical debate that
Brooks is often implicated in, engaging instead in an historical analysis of Brooks that shows not only how his conception
of tutoring is informed and mediated by the Western discourse of Enlightenment, but also how this mediation reveals an
implicit ethnocentric bias in Brooks.
Thursday
D.15
2:50 pm — 4:00 pm
SCHAEFER (continued)
PHENOMENOLOGY IN THE WRITING CENTER: A MODE OF INQUIRY FOR WRITER BASED STUDY
Eric Dragseth, University of Missouri at Columbia
Phenomenology, the study of subjective body reactions in relation to experiences, is a method of inquiry that hasn’t generally
gained credence in academic studies because it is neither quantifiable nor easily generalized to a population. However, phenomenology puts the person being studied in a position of power and therefore is capable of mapping subtle responses to
stimuli that observer reliant methods of inquiry may not catch. This presentation describes my preliminary phenomenological
study across a population of writers who recorded their body experiences to consultations at the MU Learning Center. I will
discuss the general findings of the study and explore phenomenology’s potential impact on writing center research in regard
to both the writer and the writer’s response to tutoring methods. In addition, this presentation will look at the dynamic human responses that phenomenological studies elicit as well as proposing research opportunities for those in the writing center
field.
THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT: PAPER LENGTH AND HOW (OR IF) IT MATTERS
Nancy Sorkin, Philadelphia University
This interactive session will examine the length of undergraduate writing assignments from the perspectives of instructor, stuother undergraduate courses (especially those labeled “writing intensive”), it will treat the pedagogical implications of paper
length, particularly in relation to other instructor aims, course goals, and traditions of best practices. It will also consider ways
in which paper length figures as a variable in student attitudes toward writing and how students can be helped to succeed at
writing very short and very long papers. Finally, it will explore how paper length can impact writing tutor training and writing
center practice.
D.16
WASHINGTON
Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Workshop/ IWCA
CAN A WRITING CENTER BE TOO ESL-CENTERED?
John Hall and Shweta Krishnan, Boston University
Can a harbor be too safe? One of our ESL clients recently remarked that some ESL students see us as “the ESL center.” The
client seemed to mean this as a compliment, for our supportive stance toward ESL students. However, this off-handed designation of our center could also be problematic. When two-thirds of all our sessions involve ESL students, as documented in the
fall 2009 semester, what does this suggest about our center’s mission, perception and work? Could we be presenting our writing center as a resource primarily for international students and less concerned with serving native English speakers? Vivian
Zamel has explored the condescending view among some faculty that ESL writers are “deficient” in their writing skills. Are we
unintentionally reinforcing this troubling attitude among faculty, students and even tutors? Are we creating a sense of dependency between some of these ESL students and our tutors in our safe harbor?
In our workshop, we aim to discuss these questions and form smaller groups to examine similar tensions in other writing centers’ work with ESL students. We hope to provoke a thoughtful conversation about how all writing centers strive to help ESL
students while carefully balancing perceptions, needs and tutoring strategies to best help all students and other stakeholders.
D.15—D.16
dent, and tutor, looking at aspects of theory and practice. Distinguishing between papers assigned in writing courses and in
Thursday
E.1
4:10 pm — 5:20 pm
ADAMS
VOICE QUEST: FEELING SAFE AND UNCOMFORTABLE IN THE WRITING CENTER
Davis Brown, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Donald Hoaglin and Beth Torrison, Madison East High
An innovative partnership in Madison, Wisconsin brings high school and college students together to write and perform collaborative Spoken Word pieces. In this session, the symbol of the harbor—as safe shelter, as contact zone, as launching
point—guides three teachers’ reflections on the unique project. The audience will be invited to consider Spoken Word collaboration in the Writing Center and to discuss the described partnership.
Davis Brown will define our concept of a safe learning space. A comfortable space implies familiarity and ease, but a safe one
allows for risk-taking without fear of judgment or failure. This project demands a measure of unfamiliarity and discomfort in
order to forge a safe environment that makes creative experimentation possible. Beth Torrison will argue that successful risktaking depends on generative talk within the group—talk that ultimately creates strong individual voices. By validating prior
knowledge, and encouraging honest reconciliation of disparate perspectives, the project empowers writers to carry those
voices beyond the Writing Center walls and out into the world. Donald Hoaglin will chart how specific pedagogical choices
have enhanced our emphases on safety and voice. Over the past two years, we have modified the course design, writing
prompts, mentor texts, and group dynamics to translate these conceptual goals into practice. In the process, we have seen
how Spoken Word, group writing, and high school-university partnerships can complement traditional Writing Center work.
E.2
CALHOUN
E.1—E.3
BECOMING A CENTER FOR PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION
Laura Schubert, Kurt Schick, Jared Jay Featherstone, and Karen McDonnell, James Madison University
Although we will always be a safe harbor for students to build skills and test ideas, our writing center seeks to broaden its mission beyond tutoring to become a port of dynamic exchange for faculty and students, a place that inspires pedagogical innovation. Unlike faculty development centers, WAC/WID programs, or even most classrooms, writing centers can immerse faculty
in student learning because that’s where students come to learn. Through experiences working in the center or working with
writing consultants across campus, faculty can learn about how writers really write—how students struggle with interpreting
assignments, research, and composing. Careful experimentation, observation, reflection, and practice can also become powerful means for faculty to research writing pedagogies.
In this panel presentation, professional writing consultants will promote three kinds of initiatives that we have implemented:
those that bring faculty into the writing center (Faculty Fellows and Associates), those that send writing consultants out across
campus (Undergraduate Writing Fellows program), and those that collaborate with faculty and students outside of the center
to create writing resources for the university community (Peer Teaching Project). We will engage audience members in discussions about how these programs might be adapted to their unique institutional contexts.
E.3
D’ALESANDRO
The Writing Center and the Community/ Workshop/ IWCA
WRITING CENTER OUT LOUD: THE VOICES OF COMMUNITY COLLABORATION
Liz Huntington, Sullivan County Community College
Write Out Loud is a model for a creative writing collaboration between college writing centers, public radio stations and the
community. WOL helps participating students build positive, personal relationships with their local college through the Writing Center and promotes the pursuit and appreciation of good writing, in its many forms This workshop gives participants a
clear template for creating a Write Out Loud forum, including sample documents, forms, scripts and program development
guidelines. Discussion includes examining the role of Writing Centers in promoting literacy in language arts in the community
beyond the classroom.
Thursday
E.4
4:10 pm — 5:20 pm
HOPKINS
OUT OF THE WRITTEN HARBOR: ENACTING KEATS AND VYGOTSKY IN THE WRITING CENTER
Kyle Vitale, Nora McCook, Christine Cucciarre, University of Delaware
Students often treat the writing center as a safe harbor where writing difficulties are unloaded and the mind docked from critical engagement. Our job as educators is to make that harbor a place of choppy waters. In creating this environment, Keats’
concept of negative capability foregrounds methodologies for student disengagement from the safe paper. Negative capability
helps students undermine their writing so to include opposing perspectives, and dismantles self-interested motives that restrain student writing. While negative capability is highly theoretical, Vygotsky’s theories of the Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD) and scaffolding supply a location for Keats’ concept. The ZPD posits an unfamiliar space where students grow through
struggle; scaffolding supplies the tools to challenge student thought. Vygotsky’s theories enable students to navigate from
known to new in a productively uncomfortable space. Sarah Beck’s 2006 article explores the concept of “intersubjectivity”
whereby tutor and tutee share common presuppositions about writing. Whereas Beck explores this concept theoretically,
Keats and Vygotsky’s theories supply the destabilizing space necessary for “intersubjectivity” to occur. Presenters will use
Keats’ conceptual framework to enable Vygotsky’s theories in the writing center, explore Vygotsky’s theories in the writing center from a Keatsian lens, and, finally, offer practical applications and approaches.
E.5
JEFFERSON
The Writing Center within the University/Institution/ Individual/ IWCA
TUTORING IN THE CLASSROOM AS AN ANCHOR IN A SEA OF STUDENTS
Jerome Cusson, Columbia College Chicago
E.6
INTERNATIONAL D
MAKING CONNECTIONS
Mary Rosner, Lauren Hall, Mandy Phillips, and Scott Rogers, University of Louisville
Writing Centers often follow North in trying to help students become better writers. This aim is admirable, but it is virtually
impossible to accomplish when student-writers come in to work on their writing in the Writing Centers only occasionally and
often only the day before an assignment is due. A sustained and active connection with the Center seems essential if the writer
is to become better. Toward that end, several Writing Center consultants arranged to work with a composition teacher who
encouraged his students to commit to work on their writing in the Center for three sessions for each of their two major writing
projects. Analyzing texts that became part of the documentation for the collaboration, the panel will report on how different
actors responded to this arrangement: the WC Director, the teacher, the consultants, and the students. Finally, it will suggest
how this very special arrangement might have meaning for other Centers and for other teachers.
E.4—E.6
Tutoring no longer has to be confined to a Writing Center. In this presentation, find out how tutors can venture out to sea and
calm the dangerous English waters. The discussion will include how tutors can be useful in the classroom, a look at the possible
risks and dangers, how communication between teachers and tutors can increase, and how a writing center reaps the long-term
benefits of this type of program.
Thursday
E. 7
4:10 pm — 5:20 pm
INTERNATIONAL E
RESEARCH IN THE CENTER: HOW WRITING CENTERS PRODUCE AND ACCESS KNOWLEDGE
Dana Driscoll, Mount Union College; Danielle Cordaro and Sherry Wynn Perdue, Oakland University
This panel presentation focuses on the role of empirical research in the field of Writing Centers from two angles: the scholarship we produce and the resources we use to inform our practices. Presenters one and two report on a comprehensive content analysis of articles in the Writing Center Journal (WCJ) from 1981-2009. Presenter one describes general patterns found
across the publication history of the WCJ by examining topics addressed, types of articles produced, sources used, and trends
in publishing. Presenter two focuses on an in-depth look at the role of empirical research in the publication history the examining the types of research conducted and overall quality of research (drawing upon Haswell, 2005). Implications for tutor training, future scholarship, and the future of Writing Centers as a field are discussed. Presenter three reports results of a mixedmethods study that sought to understand how Writing Center Directors and other WPAS find, access and use data about students to support formative program assessment and revision. The presentation concludes with recommendations for forming
longitudinal, context-based data collection and use strategies.
E.8
INTERNATIONAL F
Practice and Application/Individual/ IWCA
A TALE OF TWO UK WRITING CENTRES
Bonnie D. Devet, College of Charleston
E.7—E.8
As composition studies goes international, it is important, as Christine Donahue has argued, that researchers avoid an import/
export model where concepts about teaching writing are merely shifted from one country to another. Instead, international
composition studies should examine the context of the writing assistance in order to see how the principles and goals fit the
needs of the students and institutions of that country. One such area for investigating international composition studies is the
establishment of writing centers which are spreading across the globe, from Europe to Asia to Australia. As centers expand
worldwide, they arrive at different solutions for problems, solutions that reflect local contexts. Just as no one plant grows in
every type of soil, so, too, will a center vary, based on its country’s educational culture as well as on conditions within an institution. This point is illustrated by two United Kingdom writing centres: the Centre for Academic Writing at Coventry University
(17,000 students) and The Writing Centre at London Metropolitan University (34,000). This presentation shows how examining these centres’ services, research, staffing, and use of Writing Fellows/Writing in the Disciplines (WID) reveals important
insights for all writing centers/centres as they consider their own local contexts.
Diversity/ Individual/ IWCA
COLLABORATION PROMOTES CULTURAL TOLERANCE:
DIVIDED ETHNIC GROUPS IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE AND AMERICAN WRITING CENTER PEDAGOGY
Lindsay A. Bower, College of Charleston
A key methodological component within American writing centers is collaboration between writing consultant and client, yet
in institutions of higher education comprised of two or more divided and historically feuding ethnic groups – as defined by
differences in language, religion, and culture – true collaboration is often difficult due to continued self-segregation and the
culturally-specific difference in educational experience prior to attending a university. Ethnic groups with separate intellectual
traditions, varied previous exposure to English as a second language, and separate concepts of geographic relevance, successfully interact in the writing center in ways that support and advance the broader, shared concept of the importance of quality
education for all. In what ways, then, is a writing center able to best achieve true collaboration in such a divided academic
environment, and what effects become evident in regard to the advancement of cultural tolerance? Appointing a staff of “peer
tutors,” students who are adept at writing (and also the English language), but who, along with clients, are not yet fully integrated into academia, is of the utmost importance. Collaboration ideally acts as a stepping stone toward bridging the perceived gap between cultural divisions. In sharing a similar vision, client and consultant learn beyond the scope of the writing
process, and as such, the writing center serves to function as a microcosm of a culturally tolerant world.
Thursday
E.8
INTERNATIONAL F (CONTINUED)
4:10 pm — 5:20 pm
(International) Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Individual/ IWCA
ENGLISH IS NOT MY FIRST LANGUAGE EITHER: STARTING AN EFL WRITING CENTER IN TAIWAN
Thomas P. Truesdell, Northwestern College; Jui-chuan Chang, National Chengschi University, Taipei, Taiwan
In her keynote address of the joint 2008 conference of the International Writing Centers Association and the National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing, Nancy Grimm argued the growth of Global Englishes meant that writing centers should seek
racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity. So, what happens when a writing center solely consists of Non-Native English Speakers?
This session will examine efforts to start an EFL writing center at National Chengchi University (NCCU) in Taipei, Taiwan. The
session will specifically focus on the advantages and disadvantages of having NNES work with other NNES in a writing center
context. The presenters will also discuss the challenges of introducing collaborative, peer-based learning strategies to both
students and administrators who are accustomed to a hierarchical, passive learning environment. The session will conclude
with open discussion on how the experience of the NCCU Writing Center applies to other centers.
Research & Theory/Individual/ IWCA
INTERROGATING PEERNESS: EXAMINING INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE STUDENTS AS CLIENTS IN A PEER TUTORING CENTER
Valerie Balester, Texas A&M University
E.9
MCKELDON
The Writing Center and the Community/ Panel/ IWCA
CAN VIRTUAL SPACES BE "SAFE" HARBORS? USING AN AVATAR TO CHART NEW TERRITORIES FOR ONLINE COMMUNITIES
Chloe Diepenbrock, Katie Hart, Chris Graves, Britney Menconi, and Ellen Kirby, University of Houston-Clear Lake
When Writing Center professionals design physical Writing Center spaces and promotional activities, we think carefully about
making those spaces seem safe to our often anxious clients. With comfortable chairs and smiling faces, we promote the idea
that entering into our space will be productive and non-judgmental. How then do we create the same feelings of safety for the
virtual spaces we are pioneering? When our writing center began offering online tutoring in 1999, we used a simple email
interaction. Three years ago, to serve our growing population of online students, we added a chat function, but students did
not respond well. We needed a friendlier interface for students who were still not comfortable with this type of online technology. Out of this need, our virtual tutor Susie Queue was born. Susie is an avatar/ambassador who has done for us what our
previous promotions did not; she has attracted students by offering a fun and friendly online experience. Susie’s evolving
identity now includes a carefully crafted persona who interacts over chat, a blog, and a Facebook account. In this panel presentation, we will explain the concerns, challenges and opportunities that accompany the development of a virtual tutor/
identity.
E.8—E.9
At the Texas A&M University Writing Center, our staff mixes undergraduate, graduate, and professional tutors from many disciplines but mostly consists of undergraduate tutors. While we make an effort to place international graduate students working on theses and dissertations with our most experienced tutors, this is not always an option, and frequently we match an
undergraduate tutor, sometimes even one who is a sophomore, with an international graduate client. Our philosophy, which
defines tutors as generalists and uses Brufee’s model of peerness as articulated in “Peer Tutoring and ‘The Conversation of
Mankind,’” theoretically covers this situation. Peer tutors direct writers by asking guiding questions, serving as “experts” in
language, and drawing out their clients’ expertise. However, discussions and interviews with tutors, both US and international,
and examination of records of tutoring and feedback forms filled out by clients exposes the problematic nature of this theoretical model. Different communicative styles, both linguistic and paralinguistic, and different expectations for peer work (as
described in the literature, for example, on Confucian Heritage Culture), are often brought into sessions without conscious
acknowledgement. This paper explores some specific areas of conflict and attempts to reconcile them with a more culturally
sensitive notion of peerness.
Thursday
E.10
4:10 pm — 5:20 pm
MENCKEN
Diversity/ Workshop/ IWCA
CREATING SAFE CULTURAL, EMOTIONAL, AND PHYSICAL SPACES FOR DIVERSE STUDENTS IN THE CENTER
Trixie Smith and Steven T. Lessner, Michigan State University; Pam Childers, The McCallie School; Tammy Conard-Salvo and
Richard Severe, Purdue University
This interactive workshop will help directors and tutors 1) identify and define ways in which their schools and centers are d iverse,
2) become aware of the needs of diverse students and tutors, and 3) learn ways of addressing these needs. We will develop the
idea of collaborative spaces where all students should feel safe and “heard.” Because sexuality, gender, race, language, reli gion,
physical abilities, or social skills can affect tutorial sessions in various ways, we must develop ways of meeting diverse ne eds:
Does the physical arrangement make the center accessible? Can a center’s decorations offend someone’s culture? Does tutor
training address issues of diversity? Do individual sessions include “how written texts represent *students’+ visions of their culture” and how students “need new processes and forms if *they+ are to express ways of thinking that have been outside the
dominant culture”(Bridwell-Bowles)? For example, GLBT students often find themselves writing outside their “most secure rhetorical footing” as they attempt to write about what they think will be safe or acceptable topics (Malinowitz). Likewise, tutors
may discover awkward language use when students hypercorrect to excise their natural speech patterns or vernacular languages
(Matsuda). Workshop activities will culminate with the creation of action plans for participants’ own centers.
E.11
E. A. POE
E.10—E.12
USING YOGIC PRINCIPLES TO CULTIVATE A WRITING CENTER PEDAGOGY OF HAPPINESS
Catherine DeLazzero and Denise Dailey, The College of New Rochelle
At The Writer’s House at The College of New Rochelle, we have established a strong intention to create a culture and communit y
that writes and teaches writing in order to cultivate happiness. Writing is more than a cognitive process and a read product; it’s a
medium for imagining and creating a new world and an experience for engaging in that world as it is being created. This is th e writing harbor from which our students sail: one with ships that meet rough and gentle waters for the joy and love of the experi ence.
Four yogic themes ground our writing center pedagogy of happiness: an ethos of selfless service; the “Namaste” quality of the tutor
-tutee relationship; the powerful and authentic written voice of the goddess Kali; and the dharma of writing to engage in trut hfulness (“satya”) and nonviolence (“ahimsa”). Each presenter will use examples and interactive activities to explore the meanin g of
her yogic theme and connect the theme to the writing process, the culture of The Writer’s House, and the tutoring experience.
These yogic principles support a pedagogy of happiness, which encourages the infinite potential of our students and ourselves .
E.12
PRATT A
The Writing Center with in the University & Institution/ Workshop/ NCPTW
SOMETHING TO GIVE IN RETURN
Andrea R. Efthymiou, Lauren Burstein, Miriam Gofine, Nicole Grubner, and Adina Kay-Gross, Stern College for Women;
Lauren Fitzgerald, Lane Anderson, Simeon Botwinick, Yaakov Miller, and Jonathan Schwab, Yeshiva College
As “little harbors,” writing centers both take from and give back to their institutions. Our workshop will explore this reciprocal
relationship, with the goal of encouraging participants to rethink the ways in which writing centers influence and are influenced
by others. Workshop presenters and participants will split into four groups, each group assigned to consider one of the following roles: students, tutors, faculty, and writing. Each participant, including presenters, will then write individually for five minutes in response to the following question: What does your writing center offer to the role your group has been assigned? After
writing individually, participants will share their writing with their fellow group members to explore the various contributions of
their writing centers to their group’s identity. After this discussion, presenters will direct all participants to form new groups
that will include at least one representative from each of the previous groups. The new groups will then share their earlier reflections, considering the various ways that writing centers contribute to different roles within their respective institutions. Finally, presenters will engage participants in a large group discussion to consider who was not represented in the previously explored roles, as well to consider what participants have learned.
Thursday
E.13
PRATT B
4:10 pm — 5:20 pm
The Writing Center within the University/Institution/ Roundtable/ IWCA
RIDING THE WAVES OF COLLABORATION: PROMOTING CHANGE THROUGH INTERDISCIPLINARY INITIATIVES
Dawn Janke, Cal Poly State University; Prairie Brown and Teresa Kramer, Central Washington University;
Jane Cogie, Southern Illinois University; Ann Harrington, Everett Community College
Writing Center scholars call on us to be agents of change at a moment when the increasing diversity of our student populations
and the corporatization of universities vie to redefine education for the 21st Century. Nancy Grimm, for example, has challenged us to reframe our understanding of literacy learning and promote diverse voices within and beyond our centers’ walls.
To pursue such change involves collaborations not only with our students and our Center’s staff but also with a range of institutional units that can take us outside our comfort zones, even as we collide with budget shortfalls and corporatized alternatives
for student services. Presenters in this roundtable—directors of a research institution, a comprehensive polytechnic university,
a regional university, a satellite campus, and a community college—lay the ground work for the session’s discussion by offering
different configurations for interdisciplinary collaboration and approaches for negotiating the realities that may seem to
threaten a Center’s role in sustaining student-centered services. Through conversation and a range of activities, the session’s
participants will be invited to share their own approaches to building interdisciplinary alliances that uphold their Centers’ mission while overcoming the threats that seem to challenge the realization of needed change.
E.14
PRESTON
Practice and Application/ Individual/ IWCA
SOUNDING IN THE OPEN SEA: CONNECTING WRITER AND CONSULTANT IN SPOKEN, ASYNCHRONOUS RESPONSE
The real-time conversation between writer and consultant is for many writing centers our harbor; the give-and-take of the discussion is considered our safe space, especially when compared to different approaches, such as email consultations. As
Mabrito (2000) points out, electronic communication between writer and reader “offers a substantially different learning experience for both tutor and student, one characterized by the absence of body language and other visual cues that can indicate
acceptance or understanding of the discussion.” Such concerns are certainly valid, but, in certain situations—for example, at a
large metropolitan university with a large commuter population—we might well need to navigate into the open sea. This presentation details the results of one such foray: an audio journey.
In 2008, consultants at a large metropolitan university utilized audio recorders to tape their responses to student papers. They
were, in two senses of the word, sounding out their work: they had to gauge the depth of their comments and gauge how those
comments would be heard by writers. Transcripts from those sessions show how the consultants throw audio towlines to the
writers, looking to make connections in a variety of ways. Though different than face-to-face conversations, these audio sessions allow us to leave our safe harbor and explore a different part of the writing center ocean, creating new and exciting interactions with writers.
E.13—E.14
Zachery Koppelmann, Purdue University; Michael Mattison, Wittenberg University
Thursday
E. 15
SCHAEFER
4:10 pm — 5:20 pm
Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Individual/ IWCA
LANGUAGE, LITERACY, AND POWER IN PEER-FACILITATED AND PROFESSIONAL-FACILIATED WRITING CENTER
Deborah Bertsch, Columbus State Community College; Derek Boczkowski, The Ohio State University
Our presentation examines the discursive features of peer-facilitated vs. professional-facilitated writing center consultations.
Using videotapes of tutorials conducted at two college writing center s—one that employs peer tutors exclusively, and another that employs only professional tutors (i.e., adjunct instructors in English)—we explore the following research questions:
What characterizes the talk that occurs in sessions conducted by peer tutors and in those conducted by professional tutors?
How is power distributed through that talk? How is academic literacy performed or acquired in each model? Through discourse analysis of the videotape transcripts, we attempt to determine the differences—if any—between peer- and professional-facilitated tutorials, especially in terms of how authority operates and how literate behaviors are performed in each
type of tutorial. Our cross-institutional research, we believe, will have implications for tutor selection/training and for evaluation of tutoring models in differing institutional contexts.
Our session will provide an overview of our research questions, methodology, and findings. We will also share excerpts from
the videotapes and invite audience members to participate in analyzing and discussing those excerpts.
E.15—E.16
RESISTING THE LEE SHORE:
A COMPARATIVE SURVEY ASSESSING STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH WRITING CENTER CONSULTATIONS
Eliana Schonberg, University of Denver; Pam Bromley, Pomona College; Kara Northway, Kansas State University
The lee shore, the land toward which the wind blows, provides safety for ships; it also represents conformity in opposition to the
wild sea’s opportunities for independent thinking and the pursuit of truth. Thus, Moby Dick praises “unrestingly” resisting the
comforts of port. What comforts of port should we unrestingly resist as we assess our work with students? Directive vs. nondirective consulting approaches have been examined and re-examined from directors’ and students’ perspectives, most recently
by Thompson et al’s Writing Center Journal article showing students are more satisfied with a directive, but non-hierarchical,
approach in tutorials. But is student satisfaction another lee shore towards which writing center directors, eager to demonstrate
success, are pulled? Exploring our assessment efforts’ focus on student satisfaction, this panel shares results of an anonymous
survey conducted simultaneously among writing center users at three different types of universities: small liberal arts, mid-sized
private, and large public. We will present data demonstrating how sessions help students express their identity, achieve ownership of their writing, and transfer new strategies to future courses and disciplines. We will examine, and ask audience members
to consider, students’ understandings of effective sessions and reflect on changes we might make to consultant training.
E.16
WASHINGTON
FROM TUTOR TRAINING TO TUTOR EDUCATION: MAKING A SEA CHANGE IN WRITING CENTER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE
Laura Greenfield, Mount Holyoke College; Karen Rowan, California State University San Bernardino
The word “training” dominates our field in describing how we prepare our tutors, suggesting an emphasis on proficiency or
mastery of finite, rudimentary skills. For many, this language invokes an un-academic process—a disembodied set of methods
geared towards a service. Such a perception can be counterproductive to a writing center’s ability to be understood and valued by its institution, and such a practice indeed impoverishes the potential of the work our tutors can do. Building on the implicit shift some scholars (Geller et al., Grimm, etc.) have been making between this approach and one where students are
active questioners, knowledge-producers, and change-agents, workshop presenters will argue for a sea change not only in our
language but in the goals and pedagogies of our tutoring courses, workshops, and on-the-job development. Specifically, presenters argue for a vision of tutor “education” in which we collaborate with tutors to re-imagine writing center work. In this
workshop, presenters will explain the shift we propose, offer brief illustrative case studies from our own tutor education programs, and invite the audience into conversation. Activities will include large group discussion, small group discussion, guided
writing exercises, and analysis of syllabi. (Participants are welcome to bring their own syllabi to be workshopped.)
Thursday
SIGS
5:30 pm — 6:30 pm
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
(Please note: TS.1, the LGBT SIG, is held in the Thursday C Session)
TS.2
CALHOUN
WRITING CENTERS IN THE JESUIT TRADITION
Cinthia Gannett, Fairfield University; Lisa Zimmerelli, Loyola University Maryland
TS.3
HOPKINS
ANTI-RACISM
Beth Godbee, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Frankie Condon, University of Nebraska-Lincoln;
Moira Ozias, University of Oklahoma
TS.4
MCKELDON
ONLINE WRITING CENTERS
Dennis Bennett, Oregon State; Tammy Conard-Salvo, Purdue University; Matthew J Gilchrist, University of Iowa, Shareen
Grogan, National University
TS.5
E. A. POE
MWCA MEMBERSHIP MEETING
Deaver Traywick, University of North Carolina at Asheville
TS.6
PRATT A
WRITING CENTER RESEARCH
TS.7
PRATT B
ASSESSMENT
Kim Ballard, Western Michigan University; Frances Crawford, San Antonio College; Jill Reglin, Lansing Community College
TS.8
SCHAEFER
NEW HORIZONS: A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN CENTERS THAT ARE TASKED WITH EXPANDING THEIR MISSION BEYOND WRITING
Andrew Jeter, Niles West High School
6:30 PM—8:00 PM
RECEPTION
Featuring pianist Avi Amon
HALL OF FAME LOUNGE
Friday 7:45 am — 9:40 pm
7:45 AM—8:30 AM
F.1
IWCA BOARD MEETING
ADAMS
INTERNATIONAL D
THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI): WHAT YOUR PERSONALITY CAN TELL YOU ABOUT YOUR TUTORING
Deanna Koenig, Michigan State University
The MBTI is a personality type test that yields one of 16 possible four-letter combinations (each representing one type) that
describe an individual’s behavioral tendencies in a wide variety of situations. The information provided by the MBTI is thus important in both tutor training and professional development. A person’s type has significant implications for their strengths and
weaknesses in writing. As consultants, our goal is to make our clients better writers, but the client’s goal (e.g., getting a good
grade) may conflict; since every client has different needs, to best meet both goals it is necessary to be able to adapt our tutoring approach on an individual basis. Additionally, the consultant’s type has implications for their approach to consultations and
their strengths and weaknesses as tutors. This workshop will first address the effects of MBTI type on writing; attendees wil l
learn how to identify their client’s type based on the writing they bring in. Further, we will discuss how to use awareness o f
MBTI type tendencies to adapt your tutoring approach to meet individual clients’ needs. This should help consultants both understand and resolve difficulties that arise during future sessions, on top of ensuring client satisfaction with the writing center.
F.1—F.2
F.2
CALHOUN
PROBLEMS OF PRACTICE: GUIDING TUTORS TO DEVELOP AN INQUIRY STANCE TOWARD WRITING CENTER WORK
R. Mark Hall, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
For writing centers that offer courses and for those that depend on regular staff meetings for training, sustaining consultants’
learning over the course of their writing center careers is a challenge. This presentation describes one writing center’s effort to
address ongoing professional development by engaging consultants in inquiry into questions about writing center theory and
practice. With the "Problems of Practice Inquiry,” consultants form their own research questions, gather and consider relevant sources, then lead discussions about their subjects of inquiry. The goal is to develop an inquiry stance toward writing center work. In addition to framing questions and gathering information, tutors collaborate to propose interventions to address
problems of inquiry in our writing center. This presentation proposes that working from an inquiry stance involves a continual
process of making local writing center practices problematic, questioning the ways knowledge and practice are constructed,
enacted, and evaluated, and assuming that part of the work of writing consultants is to participate in ongoing learning and
knowledge-making.
WHEN TUTORS NAG, AND NAG: EXPLORING WAYS TO CARE, LISTEN, AND LEARN IN THE CENTER
Brian Fallon, Fashion Institute of Technology – SUNY
The presenter will discuss original research that provided evidence of tutors nagging writers during tutorial sessions. Upon
closer examination of literature in sociolinguistics, very few studies focus on nagging outside of the familial context (see Boxer
2002), and writing center professionals often write about being nagged rather than doing the nagging. However, the nagging in
this study shed light on the particular type of relationship that tutors have with writers and even tested some widely held beliefs of writing center scholars. The presenter will share findings with the audience, performing the interactions had by a tutor
who participated in the study. The observed interaction had the presenter consider how nagging can be a result of caring (one
rarely nags a person whom they do not care about) and how it can also be a result of desperation. By understanding caring
and desperation in the tutorial context, we have the chance to test assumptions about power and authority in tutoring and to
rethink what is necessary to create a productive learning environment. Since being heard by writers is important, this presentation will focus on what nagging teaches us about caring, listening, and learning in the writing center.
Friday 8:30 am — 9:40 am
F.2
CALHOUN (continued)
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy, Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Individual/ IWCA
TALKING AGAINST THE WIND:
TUTOR TRAINING STRATEGIES FOR STUDENTS WITH UNDERDEVELOPED LISTENING COMPREHENSION SKILLS
Corrine Hinton, University of the West
Talking and listening: an exchange central to any productive tutoring session. Writing center scholars have discussed the many
ways how and reasons why this exchange may suffer. However, one area in need of further exploration is the role underdeveloped listening comprehension, most notable in ESL students, might play in a tutoring session. As a comprehensive learning
center (including writing center services), our responsibilities include providing support services to all students, including ESL
and international graduate students with underdeveloped listening comprehension skills. With an international student population rate nearing fifty percent, the challenges our tutors face when encouraging and maintaining productive dialogue between themselves and their student clients go beyond cultural differences. Underdeveloped listening comprehension, especially academic listening, has materialized as an additional area of concern. While some students enter a tutoring session hoping to review a course paper or project, underdeveloped listening comprehension often redirects sessions away from the students’ goals, creating additional tension between tutor and tutee. This presentation describes the ways in which listening comprehension affects tutors, the clients, and the current of the tutoring session; additionally, the presenter outlines tutor training
strategies designed to help tutors and students navigate these ostensibly rough waters together.
F.3
D’ALESANDRO
The Writing Centers within the University/Institution/ Roundtable/ IWCA
Elena Garcia, Marilee Brooks, and Dianna Baldwin, Michigan State University
In our roundtable discussion, we'd like to explore how graduate writing groups are situated as thirdspace studio groups that
live "outside but alongside" graduate programs. This situatedness serves international students, students of varying disciplines,
and students at different programmatic levels. The groups act as a space where students can learn more about academic discourse and institutional conventions and a space where students can share their knowledge with one another. Since the
groups exist outside any specific graduate program, they can provide support and motivation in ways that their programs, advisors, and colleagues may not. Graduate writing groups can also be seen as complements to other Writing Across the Curriculum initiatives, such as workshops, and as professional development opportunities for both members and facilitators of the
groups. Overall, the groups are spaces that cultivate a particular way of thinking about writing and collaboration that can extend beyond graduate school, into the spaces in which students will work as professionals. Our discussion looks to briefly share
some of the specific ways our graduate writing groups function to assist students in their dual student/professional roles and
will then open the conversation to hear about different iterations of similar types of groups, with all of us considering how our
graduate writing groups can better serve our particular student populations.
F.2—F.3
WORK BESIDE THE INSTITUTION, NOT AGAINST IT: GRADUATE WRITING GROUPS AS THIRDSPACES
F.4
HOPKINS
SILENCE IN THE CENTER: SHELTER IN THE STORM
Marjorie Stewart, Art Institute of Pittsburgh
A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education stated that the Art Institute of Pittsburgh “has a . . . writing center, where a
teacher and a handful of students work quietly.” I could hardly believe it was my Writers’ Center being observed. My reaction,
to paraphrase Elizabeth Boquet, was “Where was the noise?!” Was that reporter actually passing by the same Center where
faculty refuse to hold office hours because they can’t concentrate? The Center that the neighboring tutoring center complains
about every week? That seemingly off-hand remark inspired me to observe my Writers’ Center, looking for patterns of sound
and silence, examining the role of each. There are many sounds in the Center: the low murmur of several simultaneous sessions; laughter, from gentle to raucous; the gurgle of the coffee pot; the creaking and clanking of the archaic printer. What do
the moments of silence that fall among those bursts of sound mean? Students working on drafts after brainstorming with consultants; breaks between clients when both coordinator and consultants are working on scheduling or scholarship. The speaker
will examine moments of silence as safe harbors that offer respite from the buffeting cross currents in the Writers’ Center.
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONS & THE WRITING CENTER FRAME: NEW & RETURNING STUDENTS
F.4
Melody Denny, Oklahoma State University
Since students come to the center with questions, and tutors use questions to discover more about their tutees and help students find understanding, we know that questions are an integral part of the writing center tutorial. However, we do not know
yet how questions help frame the tutorial experience or structure the discourse that shapes the tutorial experience. To answer
this question, this paper examines how students use questions, specifically those outlined by Schiffrin (1994), informationseeking; information-checking; and clarification questions, to break or maintain the writing center frame (Goffman, 1974). The
term “frame” describes the set of rules that govern social interactions, something that is not always explicitly clear to students
visiting the writing center, which may cause them to apply rules inappropriately. By using recorded videos of tutorials and a
modified vertical transcription method (Gilewicz & Thonus, 2003), the research looks at new and returning students and seeks
to understand if returning students use questions differently, either by asking variant question types or asking more or fewer
questions, once they are familiar with the writing center frame. Initial results have yielded that new and returning students do
ask different types and numbers of questions, which may relate to their understanding of the frame.
WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HOCS
Lynn Reid and Ray O'Meara, Brookdale Community College and City College of New York
Almost since their inception, Writing Centers have adopted global strategies in order to help student writers become more effective. Primary among these strategies are those that address Higher Order Concerns, for WCs attempt to help writers plan
and revise drafts that are focused, developed, organized, and cognizant of both audience and purpose. But here in the Brookdale Community College WC, consultants are noticing that when we attempt to deal with “focus,” our efforts are increasingly at
odds with what instructors direct and expect. Thus we are currently conducting a survey of consultants and faculty (using SurveyMonkey) to determine how they define the central, adhesive idea of a paper—the words they use and the standard they
expect. We will present these results as well as tutoring strategies that address the difficult task tutors often face as they attempt to bridge the differences between tutor and faculty understanding and practice of this HOC. We will ask attendees to
complete the survey and will invite IWCA participants to take the survey (during break and registration periods) in order to
gather more information on what we tutors mean when we talk to our students about focus.
F.5
INTERNATIONAL E
NAVIGATING NEW HORIZONS IN THE WRITING CENTER: PILOTING THE ADVANCED WRITER SUPPORT PROJECT
Jacob S. Babb, Kristen Pond, Charles Tedder, and Cindy Montgomery Webb, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Over the past two years, the University Writing Center at UNC-Greensboro has developed a program, the Advanced Writer Support Project (AWSP), to work with advanced graduate writers. Originally envisioned as dissertation support service, universitywide demand has expanded its scope. Each panelist explores considerations for developing AWSPs in writing centers, beginning
with dispelling assumptions of undergraduate support, developing a safe harbor for writers to navigate new discourse modes,
and initiating specialized consultation procedures. By dedicating graduate consultants to advanced writers, a neutral audience
and focus emerge for exploring writing rather than content. Working with one advanced writer on several assignments over the
course of a semester prompts a shift from conventional one-time consultancy to a proposed “coaching” model. The project also
develops reciprocal benefits for writers participating in the program as both consultant and client. This dual role creates a more
nuanced understanding to interpret the writer's moorings in the project and therefore the kind of reading needed; how to provide relevant feedback; and the importance of developing ideas through conversation. By analyzing emerging growth opportunities, AWSPs may be expanded as a standard feature of writing center practice to work with increasing numbers of advanced
writers drawn to its dialogic practices.
F.5
F.6
CARROLL
BRIDGING THE GAP: WRITING CENTERS AND BASIC WRITING PROGRAMS IN CONVERSATION
Chene Heady and Patrick Day, Longwood University
The "bridge" version of the first-year composition course is becoming increasingly common at four-year colleges. The writing
center often forms an integral part of this course, as weekly writing center trips are frequently required as a "lab" component of
the course. This approach works well at large colleges, whose writing centers are amply funded and staffed, but is challenging
at most small colleges, whose writing centers are not staffed at an adequate level to handle such an influx of students while still
serving the needs of the student body as a whole. At Longwood University, the composition program has supplemented the
work of the writing center by hiring a graduate student tutor who meets on a weekly basis with all of our bridge course students. At the end of the semester, the students are then transitioned into the Writing Center for future writing help. Chene
Heady, who designed the program as Director of Composition, will discuss issues such as obtaining funding and institutional
support for a program like this in difficult economic times. Patrick Day, the graduate student tutor, will discuss the theory and
practice of tutoring in this unique situation, neither wholly inside nor outside the writing center.
COLLABORATION, COMPETITION, COORDINATION AND COMPROMISE IN MULTI-CAMPUS WRITING CENTRES
F.6
Lucie Moussu, University of Alberta, Canada
Large universities, such the University of Toronto, with multiple campuses increasingly face a number of challenges when it
comes to the creation, funding, organization, and management of writing centres. At the University of Alberta, the challenges
include the presence of two similar writing centres--operating under the auspices of different administrative branches on the
main campus—augmented by the presence of a third Writing Centre at a satellite campus in the small rural town of Camrose,
and by another writing centre in the Faculte Saint Jean, a Francophone campus. As reductions in funding make autonomy an
unaffordable luxury, the four centres find themselves drawn together to face common problems, such as isolation, duplication
of services, language barriers, as well as issues involving the hiring, training and retention of staff and how best to meet the
needs of an increasingly diverse student body.
This session will allow the presenter to share with the audience the ongoing (and often difficult) experience of relinquishing
autonomy in favour of a more collaborative approach. We hope to share these experiences with, and to learn from the directors and staff of other large-campus writing centers that are facing challenges similar to ours.
PECULIAR INDIVIDUALITY: BUILDING A ZEN WRITING CENTER
Kevin M. Davis, East Central University
Recently, our campus WAC committee interviewed faculty to see how the university’s Official Handbook was being used; the
most consistent faculty response rejected the handbook, saying instead “our students don’t use the handbook; they use the
writing center.” It wasn’t always this way. Now in my 23rd year in the same university, I believe that we attained this position
by emphasizing our one essential relationship: to establish a significant, enduring connection to the students who walk through
our door. It hasn’t always been this way; we evolved into this position through many failed experiments: we have worked with
professors, departments, and programs; we have sought to educate faculty through workshops; we have helped with assessment, connected to student retention grants, and gained an on-line presence; we have offered special workshops and embedded in courses. And none of it, I now realize, has made a bit of difference.
In this presentation, then, I advocate a truly student-centered approach, one which has established our significance by growing
our peculiar individuality. Through students, we can build rapport with all other constituencies; the opposite is not so true.
F.7
JEFFERSON
WRITING WHILE YOU ROW: MAKING WRITING JUST AS IMPORTANT AS TALKING IN WRITING CENTERS
Jamie Lewis, Thomas Ferrel, and Jeannie Irons, University of Missouri—Kansas City
As consultants and administrators, we talk and think about writing constantly, yet too often oral communication and inner
speech -–which are often abbreviated, incoherent, and unstable (Vygotsky)–occupy a more prominent space in our professional
development than does writing itself. Frequently, we overlook the idea of writing for the sake of writing—i.e., the cognitive
process writing enacts. Writing inspires deep learning, mindful connections, and lasting discoveries. We seek to create a viable,
self-sustaining culture of inter- and intra- writing in writing centers. In the spirit of harbors as points of trade, join us in an exchange of ideas to revitalize writing in and between writing centers. In this workshop, participants will share practices, such as
writing prompts, that have helped embed the act of writing into their centers’ cultures and daily praxes. We will also examine
writing activities that didn’t go as expected. Working in small groups, we will workshop our centers’ writing practices, creating a
catalogue of writing activities to share amongst participants. Together, we’ll map a course allowing us to journey beyond the
safe port of the conference and form an inter-writing center writing collective that will create dynamic intellectual trade.
F.8
MCKELDON
USING REFLECTION AS AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOR ENRICHING WRITING CENTER ASSESSMENT
Fikri Ismail, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
THE JOURNEY BEYOND GRADUATION FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES: DATA ON HOW TO SERVE THE WRITING NEEDS OF
TRANSFER STUDENTS – AN EXAMPLE FROM A REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER IN MARYLAND
Isabell Cserno, The Universities at Shady Grove
This interactive presentation will introduce a research project in progress that attempts to highlight the significant role t hat writing centers can play in the education of transfer students to four-year schools, a population historically underserved by four-year
institutions. Statistical evidence can be a great asset in our conversations with audiences beyond the writing center world a s well
as to expand our understanding of writing centers’ impact in higher education, as Luke Niiler, Neal Lerner, and other colleag ues
have pointed out on numerous occasions. The data is drawn from students’ final paper and class grades in three different uppe rdivision classes (a nursing class, a business writing class, and an interdisciplinary and cross-institutional class on forensics science)
taught at the Universities at Shady Grove (USG), Rockville, MD, during the spring 2009 semester. USG’s writing center is part of
the Center for Academic Success (CAS). USG is a regional higher education center of the University System of Maryland (USM)
that provides expanded access to baccalaureate and graduate and serves regional community colleges as a partnership campus
to nine USM institutions. Overall, our data provides statistically significant results and shows that when students take adva ntage
of writing center services to improve their writing skills when writing with research, their academic performance improves. T his
data can offer in interesting vantage point from which to justify what we do and to demonstrate the institutional necessity of
writing centers in higher education landscapes, especially when serving transfer students from community colleges.
F.7—F.8
Perhaps, it is not too much to claim that the writing center has been perceived as a machine-like institution to which papers are
submitted and from which ‘better’ papers come out. Students, instructors, and even writing center staff themselves often find
it difficult to constantly be conscious and aware of the notion that the writing center only serves as a check point from which
students move to another phase of their writing learning process. I believe that one of the reasons why the writing center is
often perceived as a factory may be due to the absence or lack of emphasis on the importance of day-to-day reflection on the
part of writing center professionals, instructors, and students. I, therefore, argue that reflection should be emphasized through
various means and by all human elements involved, and it should be regarded generally as part of writing center routines. Ongoing reflective practices can greatly help assess a writing center’s performance and improve its function (Hawthorne 2006).
Reflection, as a form of rhetorical meditation (Lock qtd. in Bizzell & Herzberg 2001), allows us to evaluate the writing center
practices and make the necessary decisions accordingly.
F.9
MENCKEN
The Writing Center and the Community/ Workshop/ IWCA
PREPARING GRADUATES FOR SMOOTHER SAILING:
COACHING WRITERS TO APPLY WRITING STANDARDS FOR TODAY’S PROFESSIONS
Walton D. Stallings, The Graduate School and Park University; Dennis Gresdo and Jutta Pegues, Park University
Writing Centers have an exciting and increasing market. Employers and stakeholders are concerned that academic standards for
writing differ from the style guidance of the organizations and professions they join after leaving university. To meet the need
for clear and reader-based writing in the 21st century, writing center tutors can expand their repertoire. Writing centers and
individual tutors can increase their customer base and credibility by showing students how to meet standards from the federal
government (including the FAA, SEC, and the military), and the professions, especially those in writing-intensive fields such as
health care, pharmaceuticals, the legal profession, and others. This interactive workshop will demonstrate, discuss, and practice techniques for coaching students to write using professional guidelines and standards for clear and effective professional
writing. Examples include the Plain Language in Government Act of 2007 (co-sponsored by then-senator Obama) and other
standards, the Securities and Exchange Commission Guidelines, and the Army style for clear writing.
F.10
E. A. POE
HEARING AND LISTENING:
TUTOR VOICES IN BUILDING, DEVELOPING, AND SUSTAINING OF THE NORTHEAST OHIO WRITING CENTERS ASSOCIATION
F.9—F.11
William Macauley, Jr., The College of Wooster; Jay Sloan and Jeanne Smith, Kent State University—Stark
When we began NEOWCA, we wanted a regional writing centers association that was easily accessible and inexpensive. As we
continued to develop this idea, we were increasingly aware of the limited opportunities for tutors to speak to one another and
to WCDs. Tutors can participate in other conferences, but those conferences are not directed specifically at tutors even when
they are as welcoming as they can be to tutors. We wanted a conference that was focused first on tutors, and we got it. Now
that we have completed our third conference and are planning our fourth, we have seen not only how important tutor voices
were in making NEOWCA but in its continuing to evolve and become. The ways that we have engaged tutor voices have varied
with purpose, stage of the process, and context. Not unlike a good tutorial, we have asked for at least three kinds of feedback
from tutors:
●
At the start, we sought responses to guide our work, asking what tutors wanted out of a WC professional conference.
●
Somewhere in the middle, we sought feedback on progress thus far, surveying conference participants every year.
●
Later, we assessed what had been completed and what might come next.
This panel will discuss building NEOWCA and harmonize response, feedback, and assessment.
F.11
PRATT A
ESL SUPPORT PROGRAM IN THE UNIVERSITY WRITING CENTER
Doug Enders, Shenandoah University
Faced with a difficult economy, many institutions have cut back on ESL funding and staffing, leaving much of the responsibility
for providing safe harbor for ESL students to writing centers. As many of us know, shouldering this additional responsibility hasn’t been easy. Addressing this difficult situation, this presentation offers a collaborative model from Shenandoah University’s
ESL department and writing center for addressing the needs of for credit ESL students in reading/writing, oral presentations,
and conversation.
The presentation’s central focus examines how writing center pedagogy helped reshape the ESL program’s writing philosophy
and program goals for student use of the writing center, the result of which has led students to become better critical thinkers
as they have learned to be more content oriented and less grammar-focused. In addition to describing the model and its operation, the presentation describes the collaboration’s benefits to students, the writing center, and ESL program. Participant questions and comments are welcome.
F.11
PRATT A (continued)
MAKING WRITING CENTERS A SAFE HARBOR FOR SPEAKERS OF WORLD ENGLISHES
Cristyn Elder, Purdue University
This presentation will examine writing center practices through the lens of the World Englishes paradigm as defined by Braj B.
Kachru and describe how this paradigm may inform our writing center practices. As Kachru explains in his description of the
“Three Concentric Circles of Englishes” – Inner, Outer, and Expanding - it is the Inner Circle countries (i.e., the United States,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and those that make up the United Kingdom) that represent the traditional forms of English
from which “native speaker” norms have traditionally been established. However, the number of speakers of English in Outer
Circle countries such as India, Nigeria, and Singapore, where English “has been institutionalized as an additional language,” is
ever rapidly increasing. As these speakers construct and nativize their own varieties of English, as well as increasingly access the
services of writing centers within an Inner Circle context, these students challenge our notions of language “normativity.” This
presentation will examine this challenge and offer specific recommendations for writing center practices, including tutor training, feedback practices, and materials development, which respect the language diversity of those students no longer accurately identified by the labels “ESL” or “non-native” speakers of English.
Assessment & Evaluation/Individual/ IWCA
A WELCOME PORT OF CALL FOR INTERNATIONAL VOYAGERS:
HOW A WRITING CENTER CONTRIBUTES TO STUDENT SUCCESS IN AN ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES PROGRAM
Janet Boyd, Fairleigh Dickinson University
RESPONDING EFFECTIVELY TO NON-NATIVE WRITERS
Richard Blankenship, Appalachian State University
I will discuss how to best respond to non-native writers (NNW) in order to achieve the most effective learning outcomes, utilizing Contrastive Rhetoric (CR) and Mikhail M. Bakhtin’s notion of heteroglossia as theoretical underpinnings. Developments since
Robert B. Kaplan’s original study will be examined and intertwined with theories of identity performance, providing guidelines
to which writing center consultants may refer when responding to NNW. A basic premise of this paper is that effective communication in writing goes beyond linguistic rules and includes culturally conditioned thought processes that writing center consultants should be aware of and address. CR provides insight into thought processes beyond grammar, which is a crucial aspect
of cross-cultural communication. A key contribution of my paper is the understanding that different identities and texts interact
to create meanings. Where the self, text, and audience intersect is where a writing center session can be most engaging and
effective, so the results of my study recommend guiding principles consultants should maintain when responding to NNW.
F.11
As part of a broad, campus-wide Writing Initiative designed to improve student-writing skills, Fairleigh Dickinson University
opened a new campus writing center in fall 2006. Concurrently, a separate component of this initiative was launched to replace
the English for General Purposes instruction offered in their traditional English as a Second Language program with English for
Specific Purposes (ESP), which provides non-native English speakers discipline-specific instruction to improve their English proficiency. Little did the newly appointed directors of these programs anticipate that they would find themselves in a fortuitous
collaboration that would organically shape the services each delivered and evolve into a collaboration-by-design. This presentation 1) briefly traces the development of the collaboration between the two programs; 2) provides quantitative, learning outcomes data that suggests that writing center services contribute to improved, international student writing proficiency; and 3)
infers that writing support services provide students with the means for sustainable success beyond the classroom.
F.12
PRATT B
The Writing Center and the Community/ Panel/ IWCA
TEACHING WRITING IN COMMUNITIES
Julie Wilson, Thomas Belmore, and Rachel Jardine, Warren Wilson College; Andrea Malouf, Salt Lake City Community College
Each presenter has experience with Writing Centers, college service-learning courses, and community writing programs. We will
share the evolution of our community work, from Writing Center directors’ and college students’ perspectives. Writing Center
workers can offer the field of community literacy our deep understanding of partnership, an understanding we take from oneto-one tutoring and can apply to college-community partnerships. College students participating in our programs as tutors can
offer necessary insights, drawing from ongoing experiences as students and new experiences as emerging educators. Presenters will describe our philosophical predispositions, share research questions and qualitative data from our programs, and give
recommendations to others hoping to bridge college and community, theory and practice. We will share our successes and
challenges. Successes include using the one-to-one tutoring model of the Writing Center as a template for conversations with
tutoring partners; challenges include stumbling over scholarly and institutional language in these conversations. We will invite
questions and contributions from others who have explored or hope to explore community work.
F.13
PRESTON
Assessment & Evaluation, and Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Workshop/ IWCA
RECRUITING, TRAINING AND EVALUATING WRITING PEER TUTORS WHO ARE SCIENCE AND HEALTHCARE MAJORS
F.12—F14
Miriam Díaz-Gilbert, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
This interactive 75-minute session will share how one writing center at a health and science university recruits, trains and
evaluates peer tutors who are health and science majors. The presenter will discuss: 1) how to recruit potential peer tutors in
first year writing and rhetoric classes; 2) how to train potential tutors to facilitate one-on-one tutoring and first-year writing
seminars when a peer tutoring course does not exist; and 3) how peer tutors are evaluated and how peer tutors self-evaluate.
During this session, participants will learn:
 how to identify the characteristics of a potential peer-tutor
 how to create and design a training program in lieu of a peer tutor course
 how to conduct formal and hands-on-training
 how to use veteran peer tutors to mentor shadowing pre-peer tutors to conduct one-on-one assistance, writing seminars
and writing proficiency tutoring groups
 how to conduct tutoring and performance evaluations of tutors and self-evaluations
 how to use evaluations to improve tutoring and overall writing center writing assistance services and efficiency
Additionally, participants will be asked to reflect on the six items above and to share with the presenter and other participants
how they recruit, train and evaluate peer tutors.
F.14
SCHAEFER
Practice & Application/ Individual/ IWCA
USING OUTCOMES TO DEVELOP A CULTURE OF SUPPORT: PRACTICES FOR SPACE AND CURRICULUM DESIGN
Russell G. Carpenter, Eastern Kentucky University
Writing centers serve many roles on our campuses. Students need spaces that encourage discovery, exploration, and risk taking. To promote creative thinking in writing centers, students will need to feel comfortable making mistakes. That is, students
need environments that encourage them to ask questions, pursue multiple lines of thinking, and explore different approaches
and multiple view points. This all sounds easy enough, but the implications are significant and worthy of further exploration.
This presentation will use specific Student Learning Outcomes to think through the practical ways in which writing centers can
create protective, low-risk, and safe environments that encourage students to take calculated risks in their writing. By engaging
this exercise, directors and consultants will better understand how they might develop spaces that encourage creativity within
their writing centers. This presentation will also discuss activities and methods that help to support low-risk and creative environments. Through this presentation, I hope attendees will develop a better understanding of how the physical and intellectual
spaces of their writing centers can promote (or hinder) a culture of intellectual inquiry and support, encouraging students to
take risks in their writing process that they might not explore in more restrictive environments.
F.14
HELPING STUDENTS UNDERSTAND ASSIGNMENTS
Z. Z. Lehmberg and William Provost, Northern Michigan University
The 2010 IWCA-NCPTW Conference organizers challenge participants to consider several questions, one of which is this: “In
what ways do writing centers offer ‘safe space’?” I’d like to talk about how writing centers can offer “safe space” by helping
students understand their assignments. It is a known fact that assignments affect how well students write. They affect not
only the organization and/or development of a piece of writing – those higher-order concerns, but also sentence structures
and/or the number of errors students might make – those pesky lower-order concerns. But why do students find different
assignments challenging, easy, or boring? What factors influence how well students respond to assignments?
This presentation will draw on our experience teaching composition and literature courses and directing a writing center at a
public university. I’ll talk about how we worked with instructors on revising their assignments and students on understanding
the reasons behind those “ridiculous” assignments. In short, this presentation will discuss how writing center tutors and directors can work with both students and instructors on understanding the objectives or improving the clarity of assignments, thus
providing a “safe space” for students to write, talk about writing, and think. I’ll also invite participants to share their experiences with helping students understand assignments.
FOSTERING UNDERSTANDING: HOW ASSIGNMENTS INFLUENCE THE WRITING PROCESS AND WRITING CENTER SESSIONS
Meg McSwain, Appalachian State University
F.15
WASHINGTON
PUBLISHING IN THE WRITING CENTER JOURNAL
Lauren Fitzgerald, Yeshiva University; Melissa Ianetta, University of Delaware
As editors of The Writing Center Journal, we want to encourage submissions from a wide array of authors by making the publication process as transparent as possible and by supporting the development of ideas for potential submissions. Towards
these ends, this workshop will:
1) Explain what WCJ is and why you might want to publish in it: its purpose and audience; its representation of and contributions to the writing center community.
2) Discuss the kinds of articles WCJ tends to publish: typical features; best practices; practices to avoid.
3) Outline the steps of the WCJ submission process: how to submit a manuscript; what happens once it’s submitted; the blind
review process; what reviewers’ comments mean; publication timeline; acceptance rates.
4) Describe alternatives to the WCJ scholarly article: the “Theory In / To Practice” feature that foregrounds the scholarship of
the primary documents of writing center work; book reviews and review essays; other publication venues.
5) Provide a forum for generating and getting feedback on your ideas for possible submissions.
F.14—F.15
As several Writing Center theorists have noted, writing centers act as the intermediaries between teachers and students (see
Harris and Welch). Teachers develop assignments, which are then interpreted by students; the process of forming an understanding of the assignment can be one of the biggest challenges for writers. Therefore, writing centers’ collaborative atmospheres provide a place where clients can confront this challenge and develop confidence while writing in response to assignments, an important aspect in the relationship between student and project. Many consultants begin sessions by asking students about assignments and tailoring the session to meet the writer’s needs and the assignment’s criteria. Considering the
relationship between writer and assignment has many benefits for clients and consultants, including the use of more effective
brainstorming strategies, the encouragement of assignment-inspired writing, and the achievement of focused revision. Viewing writing centers as writers’ liaisons, sessions become a space in which writers can breakdown the restraints they feel assignments create and develop appropriated personal voice. Drawing from the presenter’s experience as a writing center consultant and writing mentor at Appalachian State, this presentation positions the writing center as a safe harbor for voice development within the academic institution by fostering assignment understanding.
G.1
CALHOUN
Technology/ Lightning Talk/ IWCA
NAVIGATING TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION IN WRITING CENTERS
Matthew Gilchrist, University of Iowa; Kim Abels, UNC-Chapel Hill; Tabetha Adkins, Texas A&M Commerce; Dennis Bennett,
Oregon State; Tammy Conard-Salvo, Purdue University; Shareen Grogan, National University; Steve Kaminczak, Texas A&M
This lightning talk session explores how writing center administrators can take more control over the technologies that impact
and are impacted by writing center work. Technologies in writing centers serve many needs, including assisting in administration (i.e. scheduling), marketing (i.e. websites and podcasts), direct instruction (i.e. synchronous and asynchronous online tutoring), and indirect instruction (i.e. web-based handouts and guides). If writing centers are ships at sea, technologies are harbors
that accommodate our efforts to serve both passengers and crew. It is also true that technologies, like harbors, circumscribe
our daily activities. Understanding both the empowering and the restrictive natures of technologies, writing centers become
innovators. Some writing centers adopt new technologies. Others invent ways to use or modify mainstream technologies more
flexibly. Still others develop technologies from scratch, which may be open-source technologies that are shared with other
writing centers.
Presenters will share their experiences of innovation in using and creating a variety of technologies for their centers. The audience will be invited to consider possibilities for finding or creating innovative technologies that allow for agency and creativity
in writing center spaces and to join other centers that are already collaborating to use and create new technologies.
G.1—G.2
G.2
CARROLL
GLOBALIZATION, MEDIATION, AND MULTILITERACIES:
CONSIDERING NEW CONTEXTS AND CONCEPTS FOR WRITING CENTER PRACTICE AND RESEARCH
Nancy Grimm, Michigan Tech University; Steven Bailey, Central Michigan University;
Kathryn Valentine, New Mexico State University
Typical conference proposal forms require selecting a category for the proposed presentation, with “research” often offered as
one choice among others. While selecting the research category for this proposal, our panel wants to trouble the notion of research as a stand-alone practice. In our presentation, we propose ways of looking at the intersections between research, theory, and practice in writing center work. In particular, we argue for the importance of attending to both new contextual forces,
such as globalization and the knowledge economy, and engaging recent theoretical concepts, such as writing as mediation
(Brandt) and multiliteracies (New London Group). Panelist #1 will report on his analysis of tutor handbooks and suggest ways
handbooks can more fully respond to issues of globalization and the presence of international tutors. Panelist #2 will consider
the writing center community’s discussion of their research practices and how the theoretical concept of writing as mediation
might be of use in addressing issues that emerge out of that discussion. Panelist #3 will identify the research opportunities in a
writing center practice founded on a multiliteracies conception of language, literacy, and learners. Participants will be invited to
share their responses to these contextual forces and the theoretical concepts that assist their work.
G.3
D’ALESANDRO
NEGOTIATING THE GENDERED SPACES OF WRITING CENTERS
Steven M. Tolson, Kansas State University
Writing Centers are designed to improve communication through a shared community of ideas, yet often times students, faculty members, and even aspects of the institution at large experience the Writing Center as peripheral to educational concerns.
Instead I argue that Writing Centers do play a significant role in navigating the uncertain waters of academia. To establish this
perspective, I will focus on the pedagogical approaches within the conversational space(s) of the Writing Center, including the
physical, the electronic, and the mental. Specifically, I hope to incorporate feminist theories of rhetoric as a means to approach
the many learning spaces of the Writing Center. Although the focus of individual sessions may vary, the overall goal of any Writing Center should be to improve the quality of education. Ultimately, I aim to discover if feminist theories of space and learning
can be incorporated as models for improving communication in Writing Centers. If we can understand and negotiate the spaces
that surround us, we can improve the quality of education overall.
I envision the presentation to be mostly lecture based where I present my findings. Afterwards I look forward to extending the
conversation and learning from what others have to offer through a short question and answer period.
CANTINFLAS SAILS: MY SECRET LIFE AS A WRITING CENTER TUTOR
Andrew Besa, Texas State University
JAPANESE HARAGI: A CONCEPT APPLICABLE TO AMERICAN WRITING CENTERS AND UNIVERSITIES
Justin Tucker, Texas State University
This paper examines the Japanese concept of haragi, which Matthew McCool defines as a “mutual understanding” prevalent in
“high context and collective cultures”, which John Hinds points to Japanese as being one of those cultures. In my presentation, I
show the audience examples of haragi in the original language of Japanese but I also how in articles by Mike Rose, Rebecca
Jackson, and Peter Elbow about how American Writing Centers and American university students, facility, and institutions have
their own haragi too. Writing Centers, by their very nature of being Writing Centers, invite all students (not just Asian students)
to expose, examine, and even change this haragi to the culture they are addressing.
Finally, I examine practical applications that Elbow, Jackson, and Rose used in their articles to assist themselves and their students to understanding both their own haragi as teachers and the haragi the students had. After those observations I finish my
paper by making conclusions about how anyone involved in a Writing Center can use this concept of haragi and applications
used to address to both work and help a wide range of problems encountered in daily Writing Center pedagogy.
G.3
As a writing center tutor, I often encountered students in the writing center who were new immigrants and sometimes seemed
lost. During these sessions and often during others in which I tutored students who seemed to possess the literacy practices of
the White, European, American middle-class, I sometimes felt like a Coast Guard rescue-swimmer, fighting through a confused
sea of error-ridden writing to lift the student’s head above water while striving to keep his/her voice audible over the din of
error upon which his/her professor might choose to focus. A sailor might describe a “confused sea” as one with no single wave
direction; it features waves coming from all directions and is generally associated with stormy seas. The stereotypical writing
center, a place with comfortable furniture and a coffee pot can sometimes be a daunting place for students’ weak writing skills.
Like the open sea or even a big bay, the writing center can seem to be a vast, uncharted area where identities are fluid and often hidden. While tutoring, I consciously hid my true self in a self-protective move and assumed new, varying Cantinflas identities as I tutored students, hoping to help them find their own voices.
G.4
HOPKINS
WRITING CENTER AND THE DISSERTATION BOOT CAMP:
HISTORY, MODELS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOOT CAMP START UP
Sohui Lee, Stanford University
Thirty years ago, Muriel Harris and Kathleen Blake Yancey proposed that Writing Centers take a risk by moving beyond firstyear writers and attending to the needs of other writers at the college or university—One such population of writers whose
writing needs have been invisible and unmet until recently are graduate students. The “Dissertation Bootcamp” was launched
in 2008 by my Major Research University’s Writing Center to help Ph.D. candidates in all fields finish their dissertation. We
were inspired by UPenn’s Dissertation Boot Camp—in 2005, they introduced the basic formula in which student participants
dedicated fixed blocks of time to write for two weeks and were provided a space to write. Our Boot Camp model is distinctive
from theirs, however, in providing more structured writing help through orientation workshops and assigned writing consultations. The Boot Camp improved the Writing Center’s campus visibility to programs and departments and provided a low-cost,
low-stakes means of fulfilling its mission to serve the writing needs of all students. This paper proposes to examine the history
of Boot Camps, introduces three basic models, discusses our specific practice and results, and finally provide concrete recommendations for starting up a Boot Camp.
LIFE RAFTS FOR LAW STUDENTS: A WRITING WORKSHOP SERIES TO NAVIGATE TURBULENT LAW SCHOOL SEAS
G.4
Iselin Gambert, The George Washington University Law School; Ben Grillot, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, LLP
First year law students are small fish in a big sea. Everything is new, and the stakes are high. Of all the sources of anxiety that
face a new law student, legal writing is one of the biggest. Students with years of writing experience struggle as much as those
with little or no previous experience. As a result, confidence dwindles, frustration thrives, and many students feel as though
they are drowning in a turbulent sea.
The GW Law Writing Center’s Fall Writing Workshop Series was designed to serve as a life raft for new law students. The series is hosted by upper-level law students and focuses on developing the skills students need to succeed in their legal writing
classes and in law school in general. Through our presentation, we will share easy-to-implement tips and strategies for launching a student-driven writing workshop series. We will explore the pedagogical benefits for both attendees and hosts, and will
discuss ideas for improving the series in the future. Iselin Gambert will share her perspective as the faculty director of the law
school writing center, and Ben Grillot will speak from his perspective as a two-year writing fellow and host of several writing
workshops.
ANCHORS AWAY: KINCAID SCORE ANALYSIS CAN PROVIDE
Patricia Ackerman, Kansas State University at Salina
Transitioning from high school to college, students often struggle with the need to take charge of their own writing process.
They view grading as a subjective process, claiming that once they learn what is important to an individual instructor they just
“give the teacher what they want.” One proactive strategy for encouraging students to take charge of their own learning is by
asking them to apply electronic Kincaid Score Analysis to individual assignments, providing an alternative lens through which
to see why their writing might not be considered “college-level reading.” Often surprised at their initial scores, students in
Ackerman’s classes begin diligently revising for sentence structure, passive voice, and diction in order to see their Kincaid
Scores increase. This process reinforces teacher commentary along with student learning.
G.5
JEFFERSON
THE WRITING CENTER RIPPLE EFFECT:
TRANSFERRING CREATIVE WRITING CONSULTATIONS TO THE SECONDARY CLASSROOM
Ian Burkett, Kyle Blochl, and Denise Sawyer, Appalachian State University
The focus of this workshop will be to explore how secondary education majors can draw on their experiences as a writing center consultant in order to teach creative writing at the high school level. We will seek to open discussions about how creative
writing consultations can translate to pedagogy, group work, and instruction in a secondary school setting. We will address
how tutors can shift focii when working with creative writers who may be operating outside of conventional academic writing
approaches. We will also share some guidelines for approaching sessions with creative writers and how those guidelines can
be adapted for use in a high school classroom. Time for the sharing of strategies will be included, as well as the experiences of
the panel, all of which are both UWC tutors and are pursuing English Secondary Education degrees. Finally, small groups will
work together to workshop a piece of creative writing, learning from each other’s approaches and implementing lessons
learned throughout the workshop. We will use this session to tackle your uncertainty with poetry, creative non-fiction, and
short fiction, and discover ways that writing tutors can help with this unconventional field.
G.5
G.6
MCKELDON
THE SESSION, THE SWING OUT, AND THE SAFETY OF STUDIO: WRITING AS DANCE
Cole Bennett, Abilene Christian University
Considering notions of safety and risk attached to both writing centers and dance studios can highlight vulnerability as a felt sense,
as well as emphasize the idea of “publication” as something larger than submission to a teacher. The juxtaposition of these two
arenas can yield productive links for tutors of writing, for whom notions of risk are often diminished by years of expertise:
 Both facilities were created to better respond to exigency;
 Both the writing center and the dance studio serve as spaces to invent, arrange, revise, and edit apart from the space of
publishing; and
 Tutors in both arenas strive to emphasize high-order concerns to move toward an overall result while learners focus disproportionately on lower-order concerns.
In an individual presentation, I will draw meaningful comparisons between my two campus roles of Writing Center Director and
sponsor of the university swing dance club. The commonalities of these seemingly disparate positions offeres numerous points
of relevant overlap regarding the intricacies of each learning site, and the elaboration of such points can be enriching. Finally,
examining another activity whose proponents engage in arguments of art vs. skill provides a fresh perspective into root discussions of learning, teaching, and mentoring.
SITUATIONAL NAVIGATION:
USING SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP TO IDENTIFY NEEDS, INDIVIDUALIZE TUTORING, AND NAVIGATE TO INDEPENDENCE
G.6
Eric Sentell, Northern Virginia Community College
If we accept Stephen North’s assertion that “our job is to produce better writers,” then Writing Centers should produce autonomous writers who “throw off the bowlines” and “sail away from the safe harbor,” as Mark Twain urges. “Situational Navigation”
will offer Writing Center Directors and Tutors a revelatory framework for identifying each student’s unique needs, individualizing tutoring, and facilitating navigation from dependence to independence: Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey’s theory of Situational Leadership. When practicing Situational Leadership, leaders recognize followers’ needs in particular situations and adapt
their leadership accordingly. Blanchard and Hersey identify four general sets of needs and describe four corresponding adaptations of leadership: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating. After observing mock tutoring sessions, I will engage the
audience in using Situational Leadership to identify each writer’s unique needs, and we will discuss the best leadership style for
individualizing tutoring and facilitating each writer’s progression to autonomy—the ability to thrive under delegating leadership, including independently navigating writing challenges. Thus, Directors and Tutors will learn to make the Writing Center “a
launching place” through better training and tutoring. Audience members will receive a detailed description of Situational Leadership with a bibliography and training exercises.
NAVIGATING A BACKWATER: RECONSIDERING THE ROLE OF TUTORS AS EDITORS
Lyndall Nairn, Lynchburg College
For many years, writing center tutors have consistently played down the role of editing. We use such mantras as “Tutors should
deal with global issues before local ones,” “The student, not the tutor, should hold the pen,” and “The writer, not the product,
should be the focus of the tutor’s attention.” However, in this focus on the writer, critical thinking, and the writing process, it is
possible that we have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Our goal to assist students in the development of their writing
skills should also include the development of the fine points of their sentence-level language. One way to encourage tutors to
reconsider the importance of careful written expression is to introduce the tutors to the basic procedures of the work of copyeditors. Tutors who can envision writing playing a significant role in their own post-graduation careers will be motivated to improve their own copyediting skills, which will then become part of their tutoring repertoire. Paying attention to editing may
sound like navigating an insignificant backwater in today’s writing center world, but we all know that good writers have managed to develop sophisticated editing skills, so this particular backwater deserves a second look.
G.6
MCKELDON (continued)
METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE IN WRITING CONSULTATIONS
Terese Thonus, University of Kansas
Fischer and Harris (2001) describe and critique metaphors that "apply to writing centers with unwavering variation" (p. 23).
Because writing itself is such an abstraction, and the writing process a series of actions taken over time, it is impossible to
avoid metaphorical language not only in describing writing center spaces but also writing center talk. Discourse analysts have
found that metaphors perform specific work in teaching and learning, including explanations of difficult or unfamiliar topics
(Cameron & Stelma, 2004). In writing center work, Baake (2000) notes that metaphors are useful in getting across key writing
concepts. The presenter has investigated metaphorical language used by writing consultants in 42 interactions between native
English-speaking writing consultants and first and second-language writers. Research questions were:
 What types of metaphors do tutors use?
 Are there specific circumstances in which metaphors are extended to create metaphor clusters?
 Do writers contribute any metaphorical language of their own in these interactions?
 How productive are these metaphors in communicating the consultant’s and writer’s ideas? In supporting the writer’s
composing and revising during the consultation?
Participants will examine consultation transcripts to discover answers to these questions.
G.7
MENCKEN
Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Panel/ IWCA
ACADEMIC DISCOURSES AND THE ETHICS OF SUPPORTING ELL WRITERS: THE WRITING CENTER STUDIO COURSE
An articulation agreement with two Chinese universities has resulted in a large number of international transfer students at
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. To support these students’ transition to the American academic context, the Writing Center at UNL implemented a pilot studio course in 2009-2010, open only to students from the articulating universities. Through
the experience of teaching these courses, questions about teaching academic discourse, supporting ELL readers as writers, and
working with international students ethically within a globalized world have surfaced and will be explored in this panel presentation. Speaker 1 argues that making the rules of academic discourse transparent is important for international students’ success, yet it is also necessary to consider the Writing Center’s role in perpetuating this discourse. Speaker 2 argues that students
are asked to perform reading tasks for which international ELL students need support and instruction that is typically not available anywhere else in the university. Speaker 3 argues that in globalized Writing Centers, tutors cannot avoid encountering
ethical inquiries about the unidentifiable Others at the thresholds of Writing Centers and will present his own experience as an
international tutor to present a theoretical understanding of these contemporary ethical issues in Writing Centers.
G.8
E. A. POE
LEADERSHIP IN WRITING PROGRAMS AND CENTERS: SAILING WITH THE CURRENTS
OF TODAY’S PROFESSIONS AND DISCIPLINES
Walton D. Stallings, The Graduate School and Park University; Dennis Gresdo and Jutta Pegues, Park University
In today’s high-tech and globally-oriented professions, graduates will communicate exponentially more in writing than in past
decades. Their success will depend on their ability to write well according to the standards of the organizations and professions they join. While writing center tutors do well in meeting the immediate academic needs of students and instructors in
assisting with specific assignments, few are aware of the emerging standards – including federal legislation and compliance
requirements – for writing in the government, financial services, many disciplines/industries. In order for tutors to confidently provide the “professional activity involving both responsibility and trust,” that Leigh Ryan describes in the Bedford
Guide for Writing Tutors,” today’s tutoring sessions must be based not only on a clear understanding of the assignment instructions, but also on the standards for good writing in the disciplines and professions. This session will discuss specific standards for writing, including the Plain Language in Government Act of 2007 and industry guidelines for writing, and provide
strategies, techniques, and resources for meeting students’ and instructors’ needs for good writing in their disciplines.
G.6—G.8
Bobbi Olson, G. Travis Adams, and Dae-Joong Kim, University of Nebraska—Lincoln
G.9
PRATT A
TRACING THE WINDS OF SOCIAL CHANGE IN TALK ABOUT AND AROUND WRITING
Beth Godbee, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Stephanie Kerschbaum, University of Delaware;
Moira Ozias; University of Kansas, Sundy Watanabe, University of Utah
Recent writing center scholarship expresses increasing commitment to equity and social justice in teaching and administrative
work (e.g., Gellar, Eodice, Condon, Carroll, and Boquet). Sharing this commitment, we offer three methodological approaches
to answer the question: how does talk about writing—in writing center conferencing and tutor education—bring about social
change? We locate our presentation within Grimm’s 2009 “New Conceptual Frameworks for Writing Center Work” by presenting ethnographic, conversation-based research on everyday writing center practices.
Utilizing videotaped tutor education discussions and subsequent interpretive interviews, Speaker 1 identifies rivaling as a process that can mediate tensions between Anglo-American and Indigenous epistemologies and provoke critical innovation despite
“differ*ing+ values” or “conflicting contexts” (Grimm 22).
G.9—G.10
Drawing on cross-disciplinary literature and using conversation analysis to look closely at videotaped writing conferences,
Speaker 2 identifies “intuitive” and “interpersonal” strategies (Grimm 21) both writers and tutors use to raise critical consciousness, build affiliative relationships, and restructure power relations during their writing conferences.
Speaker 3 argues that through deployment and uptake of markers in talk—rhetorical cues speakers use to signal difference—
individuals disrupt assumed understandings of text(s) and identity. These disruptions reveal how social change takes shape
interactionally and metalinguistically (Grimm 18-19), which can enhance tutor education.
G.10
PRATT B
WHEN THE TECHNOLOGY DOESN’T WORK, BUILD YOUR OWN ONLINE TUTORING PROGRAM:
A SOLUTION WITH NEW PROBLEMS FOR THE WRITING CENTER
Angela González and Jeremy Wiuff, Whitworth University
This three-part co-presentation by Whitworth Writing Center director and student technology assistant will offer an analysis of
local survey and current practices in online tutoring and plans for an original online program based on that analysis. We are
especially interested in generating a discussion with the audience about the promise and problems of starting up and maintaining original programs.
First, setting sail online: We began offering online consultations in Fall 2008 via WCOnline to reach out to graduate, returning
(non-traditional), and non-resident students. We advertised in student and faculty emails, informational blurbs in faculty syllabi, spots on campus radio, and classroom visits. Since then, we have continued to promote the online services. While face-toface consultations increased dramatically (a good thing), we have completed only three, yes, three online consultations. We
expected smooth sailing but found rough waters.
Second, our search for a new tack: Tutors believe that students are accustomed to face-to-face interactions and the few online
consultations done were not considered successful. Our new tack is to find out what students want via survey this spring, develop an original program in fall, and pilot it in spring 2011.
Third, SOS: The presenters need help. We invite feedback on our plans and hope that others will come share their journey too.
G.10
PRATT B (continued)
IT’S TIME TO SINK OR SWIM: TAKING WRITING CENTER PEDAGOGY INTO SECOND LIFE
Dianna Baldwin, Michigan State University
As a writing center associate director and the instructor of our consultant writing center theory and practice course, I am constantly quizzed about why we should have an online writing center in Second Life as opposed to using other technologies such
as Skype, Yahoo Chat, Google Docs, or a plethora of other such technologies. Often, we become wrapped up in what is new
and innovative, and we want to try it to see how it works. I believe this is key component to learning and one that we should
encourage. Once we have figured out the bells and whistles of the new technology, however, the real work must begin. WHY
should we use this technology over the ones mentioned above, or why do we need an online center at all? This proposal will
attempt to answer these questions for those who may be considering Second Life for their own centers, and perhaps even for
those who are already using this technology. One way I will do this is by combining my knowledge of Second Life with my understandings of writing center pedagogy and by creating new knowledge through my “260 Days of Learning Project” (www.260days.weebly.com).
G.11
PRESTON
NAVIGATING UNCHARTED WATERS: NEW ROLES FOR WRITING CENTERS
Christine Cozzens, Agnes Scott College; Helena M Hall, Loras College; Libbie Morley, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



Speaker 1 will focus on the student experience, addressing the center’s role in supporting student learning, creating a safe
space where learning and creativity thrive, and articulating these roles to audiences such as faculty and administrators.
Speaker 2 will highlight the support the writing center gives to faculty teaching increasing numbers of students in each
class, to the growing number of international students, and to the graduate and undergraduate student consultants.
Speaker 3 will address best practices for positioning the writing center as integral to the academic program and as a vital
contributor to institutional success through its role in supporting curriculum, admission, student life, development, and
accreditation.
G.10—G.11
What makes a writing center indispensable to a university or a college in times of financial difficulty? How will writing centers
maintain the independence and integrity of their pedagogy when every unit is being scrutinized for savings? How can writing
center directors help their institutions navigate the difficult times ahead? In this interactive presentation, the three panelists
will examine ways in which writing centers have become recognized as essential participants in strategies that lead to success
in very different institutional contexts.
G. 12 SCHAEFER
NAVIGATING DARK WATERS:
INITIATING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MISUSING SOURCES IN THE WRITING CENTER AND THE UNIVERSITY
Ted Roggenbuck, Bloomsburg University
In her response to Sean Zwagerman’s 2008 CCC article, “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism, and the Rhetoric of Academic
Integrity,” Virginia Anderson thoughtfully acknowledges the theoretical fuzziness surrounding the idea of intellectual property.
Anderson feels compelled, though, especially because of looming angry professors and detection software, to inform her students: “If you do this and this, you will have plagiarized.” To help students understand how to ethically work with source material at my university, I have coordinated with faculty from across campus to visit their classrooms. What seems clear from
follow-up surveys is that most students on my campus do not know that making changes to another’s language without indicating having done so constitutes misuse of sources. Level of understanding does not vary significantly from freshmen to seniors. Writing center directors and consultants have opportunities to help students navigate these murky ethical waters by acting as guides rather than pounding the drum of academic integrity.
This session presents an overview of recent scholarly discussions related to plagiarism and misusing sources; it presents data
regarding the understanding of BU students about working with sources; and it offers strategies for directors and writing consultants for initiating non-punitive discussions about misuse of sources.
G.12
WRITING CENTERS IN COMPOSITION TEXTBOOKS
James McDonald, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
How are writing centers represented in composition textbooks, if at all? Because a central purpose of a composition textbook
is to shape and improve students’ writing processes, it is important that they inform students of the roles and benefits of tutor
conferences and OWLs. At the same time, textbooks can reveal the place and status of writing centers in composition studies
and instruction as a whole. I will examine popular rhetorics, handbooks, and readers to see whether how many mention writing centers and how they represent writing centers (for example, as places that mainly help students with grammar or as a
resource for consultation and collaborative activity on all aspects of writing) and discuss other ways that textbooks could encourage students to incorporate visits to the writing center in their writing processes.
THE WRITING-CENTERED UNIVERSITY AND THE ENDS OF LIBERAL KNOWLEDGE
Mitch Nakaue, University of Wisconsin-Madison
What kinds of knowledge should universities value, and what is the purpose of a university education that is based in the liberal arts? These questions form the basis of this individual presentation, which considers the place of writing centers in university systems that attempt to balance learning for its own sake with the development of practical skills and attitudes that are
desirable in the work force. Beginning with an analysis of Cardinal Newman’s The Idea of a University (1852), which draws useful distinctions between types of knowledge, the paper will then propose that the knowledge gained from study in the liberal
arts (what its critics call esoteric and Newman calls liberal or universal), is vital to promoting civic engagement and ethical rigor
in the young. Within a writing center context, conceptualizing liberal knowledge as moral and social diminishes the theory–
practice binary by suggesting that the very practical work of recalibrating the notion of writing as process rather than product
undercuts the aims of utilitarian, outcome---based educational models. Together, the speaker and audience will discuss what
constitutes forms of liberal knowledge in our pluralistic society, and the role writing centers can play in helping academia reclaim the communitarian aims of higher education.
G.13
WASHINGTON
SEEKING OUR OWN GROUND: WHAT WRITING AND WATER HAVE IN COMMON
Lora Mendenhall, Purdue University Calumet; Nita Meola, Columbia College
How many of us find that we do our best writing around water? Do you find yourself coming up with all kinds of new ideas in
the shower, in the bathtub (and jotting them down later), or when it is raining? Perhaps you find this is true even while just
sitting by a lake? Do you find your thoughts come together inspired by the fluidity of water as a substance? Indeed, from
questioning those who write a lot, it seems that many of us do. Is there a rhyme or reason to this?
John F. Kennedy once quoted, “All of us have in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the
ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back
to the sea – whether it is to sail or to watch it – we are going back from whence we came.” While this may be true, let us not
forget that we are also comprised of 60% water. Do we underestimate the power we have to connect with it? (And perhaps it
with us?)
G.13
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H.1
ADAMS
Diversity/ Workshop/ IWCA
EPISTEMOLOGY OF THE WRITING CENTER CLOSET: A CRITIQUE OF QUEER TUTORING
Neil Simpkins, Agnes Scott College
This session will map an epistemology of queer tutoring with particular attention to critiquing hegemonic modes of constructing
tutors in many tutor training texts. While these texts often reinforce imperialist modes of tutoring, the absence of any analysis
of gender or sexuality is a glaring omission. Have those of us who are involved with writing center work critically analyzed
methods of tutor training and praxis in terms of how they reinforce heterosexism and cissexism (sexism that particularly targets
trans people)? What kinds of queer and counterhegemonic tutoring methods do our LGBTQ tutors create? This presentation
will be facilitated by a gay transgender tutor and administrator at a small women’s college from the Southeastern United
States—a space that is not always a safe harbor for LGBTQ identified people. Using tutor training texts and personal interviews
with LGBTQ tutors as a frame, we will map uncharted methods of tutoring that honor tutors’ queer identities and critique heterosexist and cissexist constructions of tutoring praxis. Through small group discussion, written personal reflection, and group
exchange about best practices in tutoring, participants will create new queer forms of tutoring praxis.
H.2
CALHOUN
QUESTIONING IN THE SAFE HARBOR OF WRITING CENTER CONFERENCES
H.1—H.2
Isabelle Thompson and Jo Mackiewicz, Auburn University
We analyzed questions used in 5 writing center conferences conducted by experienced tutors and rated as highly satisfactory by
the tutor and student. Questions are interrogative expressions such as What did your instructor tell you to do? Beginning with
a taxonomy from research about questioning in math and science tutorials, we adapted the scheme to include the nuanced
questioning used in scaffolding, where tutors support students through a series of questions and hints. During the 5 conferences, which averaged 35 minutes and 272 turns-at-talk, tutors asked 228 questions, and students asked 61 questions. Hence,
like teachers, tutors ask more questions than students. However, the ratio of tutor-student questions (27:1) in our study is
much lower than typical in classrooms; some researchers suggest that the teacher-student ratio of questions is 240:1 (Graesser
& Person, 1994). We also coded the questions into 7 categories: questions to gain information; questions to establish shared
knowledge about assignments; questions to influence actions during conferences (asking the other person to provide a handout); questions to control the conversation; leading questions (tutor only); scaffolding (tutor only); and off-task questions. We
exemplify each and explain how these questions help to create a safe harbor for students to take risks.
REVISITING THE GENERALIST VS. SPECIALIST TUTOR DEBATE
Sue Dinitz and Susanmarie Harrington, University of Vermont
The question of which is more effective—a generalist tutor or a tutor with specialized knowledge in the discipline— has been
debated by writing center scholars for decades. This same debate is found in discussions of tutoring for WAC/WID programs.
Haring Smith's model at Brown uses generalist tutors, while Soven advocates using specialist tutors, explaining “the knowledgeable tutor . . . more effectively communicates the various understandings about writing promoted by WAC.” In this presentation, we provide additional insights into this debate based on current tutoring practices. During the Spring 2010 semester, we
audio- taped tutoring sessions over papers for political science and history classes, half with generalist tutors in the Writing Center and half with specialist tutors working either in the Writing Center or in our WID Fellows Program. Three faculty members
in the discipline will evaluate the effectiveness of each session and analyze the roles played by the tutor’s and writer’s knowledge of the discipline. Drawing on the faculty evaluations and our own analyses of the tapes and student papers, we consider
how tutors’ expertise in the discipline shapes (a) how they conduct a session (the relationship established, the strategies used,
the suggestions and advice given) and (b) the effectiveness of their tutoring.
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H.2
CALHOUN (CONTINUED)
Research & Theory, The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Individual/ IWCA
LITTLE BOXES ON THE HILLSIDE, AND THEY ALL LOOK JUST THE SAME: HOW TUTORS VIEW STANDARDIZATION’S EFFECTS
Dawn Fels, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Malvina Reynolds’s 1962 hit “Little Boxes” criticizes universities for standardizing students’ lives. Students graduate, bearing
little resemblance to the individuals they once were. They live lives of uniformity in ticky tacky houses that are attractive but
poorly constructed. Reynolds wrote the song while en route to an event for the Friends Committee on Legislation, a non-profit
advocacy group “charged with reminding legislators of the worth of every person, regardless of social standing, ethnic or religious background.” The speaker uses Reynolds’s metaphor to foreground findings from a study she conducted with over 50
writing center tutors who explored the effects of standardized writing instruction and assessment on writers’ work, agency, and
identities. Tutors describe a range of standards and a range of students’ responses to those standards. They describe how standardization is particularly felt by first-year, ESL, and non-traditional students. They describe writers' attempts to “stuff themselves into boxes,” and “become someone they are not.” They also describe how writing centers implicate themselves in standardization.
Throughout the presentation, the speaker will ask attendees to reflect on how their writing center might reveal the effects of
cultural norms for writing and work to raze those little boxes that standardize tutors and students.
H.3
CARROLL
Lauren Williams, Octavia Davis, and Harry Denny, St. John’s University
This panel will explore the possibilities for partnerships between writing center consultants and first-year writing faculty
through the practice of embedded tutoring, with an eye on the potential impact of these partnerships on student writing. The
panelists will share findings of research conducted while Lauren Williams worked as an embedded tutor in Octavia Davis’s firstyear writing course during the fall 2009 semester. Williams and Davis will cover best practices for embedded tutoring and discuss the impact of this partnership on their respective pedagogies. Harry Denny will discuss the partnership between Williams
and Davis in the context of the Institute for Writing Studies at St. John’s University, which houses both the Writing Center and
first-year writing program. All three panelists will offer insight into how embedded tutoring relates to writing center pedagogy
as well as composition pedagogy.
H.4
D’ALESANDRO
NO NEED FOR DRAMAMINE: CRAFTING SEAWORTHY POLICIES ON OPEN WATERS
Andrew Jeter, Niles West High School; Jennifer Follett, Loyola University Maryland; Thomas P. Truesdell, Northwestern College
Through their emphasis of metadiscursive reflection and analysis, as well as their (non)location within their institutions, writing
centers are well-positioned to critique modern academic practices. In fact, over the past decade, the voices challenging writing
centers to become sites of critique and advocacy have become louder. Still, as most writing center administrators know, leaving
our safe harbors as service entities and venturing into the seas of critique and advocacy can be difficult. How do we navigate
the turbulent waves that arise when our advocacy collides with the expectations of constituents?
In this session, three writing center administrators from very different contexts (a high school literacy center, a private liberal
arts college, and a Jesuit University) will share stories that situate some of their policy decisions as addressing ideological undercurrents that can threaten the stability of their writing centers’ relationships with students, faculty, and administration. We will
provide an opportunity for participants to reflect on and discuss their own attempts to craft ideologically seaworthy policies in
response to demands from outside their centers. By understanding our own collaborations or collisions with others as manifestations of ideological cross-currents, we can work toward crafting our own vessels sound in both practice and theory.
H.2—H.4
MEETING IN THE MIDDLE: EMBEDDED TUTORING IN THE FIRST YEAR WRITING CLASSROOM
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H.5
HOPKINS
WRITING CENTERS AND THE PROBLEM OF EXPERTISE
John Boyd, Washington College
In this presentation, I’d like to explore the ambivalence that writing center professionals have typically felt toward the idea of
“expertise” – a concept that implies hierarchy, evaluation, and solitary achievement. We’ve resisted the term, often justifiably,
because it challenges our perception of writing center work as collaborative and student centered. As a result, however, our
literature has remained conflicted about how we define the disciplinary status of writing center work and, in particular, how
we construct the identity of “peer tutor.”
As a means of better understanding this problem, my presentation will begin with a consideration of two landmark articles
from the mid-1990’s that approach the issue of expertise from conflicting perspectives, Terrance Riley’s “The Unpromising
Future of Writing Centers” and Linda Shamoon and Deborah Burn’s “A Critique of Pure Tutoring.” Next, I will consider the ways
that recent studies in expertise and expert performance might shed new light on the lingering problem of writing center identity and disciplinarity reflected in these two articles. Finally, I hope to involve session participants in a discussion of how writing
centers might begin to link social and cognitive approaches to teaching writing – and how we might use this connection to
more clearly define the work we do.
THE SOPHISTIC WRITING CONSULTANT: LEARNING FROM PRE-SOCRATIC AND POSTMODERN RHETORICIANS
H.5
Steven Sherwood, Texas Christian University
In a tutorial, a writing consultant may find him or herself unable to shake the sense that the best, most original aspects of a
writer’s work fall somewhere between the logical cracks, beyond the neat categories the writer has set up, or outside the strictures of a writing assignment. To urge the writer to fight the impulse to neaten or tighten these aspects out of existence may
conflict with the practical and temporal constraints of the tutorial. After all, the writer’s desire for closure—to simply finish a
paper—may override other concerns, including unrealized ideas the paper raises. But to the extent that a consultant’s job
involves collaborating with a writer to generate fresh perspectives, fighting closure is central to writing center work. To embrace this central mission, writing center consultants have much to learn from the sophists—both pre-Socratic and postmodern—who like writing center consultants live on the periphery of their community, break disciplinary boundaries, draw on a
sensitivity to kairos, promote open-endedness rather than closure, and shun the neat, either-or patterns of dialogic thinking.
Drawing on classical and contemporary rhetorical theory, this presentation will explore the connections between writing center work and sophistic philosophies.
WRITING WELCOME/WELCOMING WRITERS: HARBORING HOSPITALITY IN THE WRITING CENTER - A PHILOSOPHICAL APPEAL
Brandy Grabow, University of North Carolina—Greensboro
As philosopher Emmanuel Levinas wrote, “The relation with the Other, or Conversation, is a non-allergic relation, an ethical
relation; but inasmuch as it is welcomed this conversation is a teaching” (Totality & Infinity 51). Levinas’ conception of the
Other requires us to receive the individual in all of her infinity, not to totalize her into any of our own preconceived ideas.
Consultant and client must meet one another, in Levinasian terms ‘face to face’. More important than Levinas’ conception of
the Other, is his emphasis on conversation and teaching.
Unlike any other space on a campus, the Writing Center offers a place where teaching and learning happens through conversation. In order for that conversation to be ethical, the writer must be welcomed into the space by a consultant who is able to
meet her face to face. Envisioning Writing Centers as safe harbors for writers means that we must ensure that upon entering
they are welcomed by consultants ready to engage in a conversation unburdened by institutionally defined relationships. This
session asks participants to consider the philosophical implications of creating peer to peer Writing Centers.
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H.5
HOPKINS (continued)
Specific Student or Tutor Populations/Individual/ IWCA
“HARBORING NO DOUBTS:” CROSS COLLABORATION AND CREATION OF A DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING TUTORING PROGRAM
Helen Raica-Klotz, Saginaw Valley State University
Like many American universities, Saginaw Valley State University struggles to retain our first year developmental writing stu dents:
over half of these students do not pass English 080 (developmental writing), and only one quarter of these students return to our
university their sophomore year. Through careful collaboration with the Writing Center, the First Year Writing Program, and the
Office of Minority Student Affairs, our Writing Center creating a “Quick Start to Success” (QSS) tutoring program in Winter 2 010
specifically designed to support and retain these first year developmental writing students. This QSS program recruits stude nts
who have successfully completed English 080 and English 111 (freshman composition) to serve as tutors during their sophomore
year to freshman developmental writers. Closer in age, experience, and backgrounds to our developmental writers, these tutor s
work in the Writing Center and the English 080 classroom as writing coaches and role models. This presentation will discuss the
QSS tutoring program, and share the voices of the tutors, English 080 students, and faculty involved in the program. In addi tion,
this presentation will outline the basic steps for collaboration across programs at our university, and encourage participant s to
brainstorm potential collaborations of at the own universities to work on retention of developmental writers.
H.6
INTERNATIONAL E
NAVIGATING CURRENT ISSUES FACING WRITING CENTERS AT LARGE RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
Brad Hughes, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Linda Bergmann, Purdue University; Katie Levin, University of Minnesota;
Libbie Morley, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Laura Plummer, Indiana University, Bloomington;
Student populations and needs are shifting, as are disciplinary concerns among faculty. Amidst this sea change, writing centers
must support the efforts of our institutions while remaining stable and helpful to the students we serve, and charting a course
for a sustainable future. In this roundtable discussion, writing center directors from several Big 10 universities will pose and
discuss with the audience a series of questions currently facing most centers at larger research institutions: 1) What are the
advantages of centralized vs. multiple centers to serve a large population of students and disciplines?; 2) Can we serve the
wide variety of undergraduate and graduate writers at a large research university successfully, and in trying to do so, how are
we perceived by research faculty and administrators (Praxis, Spring 2009)?; 3) Does collaborating with other campus units help
or hinder our efforts (Cogie et al, “Risks in Collaboration,” 2007)?; and 4) Where do our opportunities and challenges lie in preparing graduate students to be future writing center directors (Nicholas, ed., (E)Merging Identities, 2008)? Pairs of presenters
will in the first 25 minutes briefly comment on each topic, then dedicate the remaining 50 minutes to discussion with the audience. The goal for the roundtable is to start a national conversation and possible collaborations among writing centers at large
research universities to address these pressing issues.
H.7
JEFFERSON
NAVIGATING TURBULENT WATERS: PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER IN THE WRITING CENTER
Jessica Legg and Lindsay Sabatino, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Often students expect the Writing Center to provide a safe harbor. However, before they have an opportunity to dock their boa t, a
shift in currents pushes them to uncharted seas. While these territories may instill a sense of familiarity, uncertainty incr eases as
the shoreline and its feeling of safety disappear. These emotions are emulated through students’ expectations and assumptions of
gender in the Writing Center. According to Judith Butler, gender is not a fixed identity but is fluid and changes depending o n context. Pamela Hartman also reaffirms that gender is “always being negotiated moment-to-moment and place-to-place” (84). The
social constructs of gender can cause ripples or tidegates in the calmest harbor. Through the use of a survey, this panel will investigate students’ expectations and preferences prior to coming to the Writing Center, at what point during the writing process m ales
and females visit the Writing Center, and if there are differences regarding what they disclose during tutoring sessions. Spe aker 1
will apply a gender theory lens to Writing Center practices. Speaker 2 will present the survey and findings. Together, the sp eakers
will lead a discussion about how these findings can veer tutors to help students better navigate the shorelines.
H.5—H.7
Carol Severino, University of Iowa; Barbara Shwom, Northwestern University; Naomi Silver, University of Michigan
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H.8
MCKELDON
SAME BOAT, DIFFERENT PORTHOLES: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF FACULTY AND STAFF PERSPECTIVES ON WORK
Melissa Nicolas, Drew University; Michelle LaFrance, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
Writing centers, like many offices and departments on a college campus, often employ a mix of faculty, staff, and students.
Despite goodwill on the part of all employees, sometimes tension that has no discernible cause arises among these groups. As
faculty administrators, we found ourselves wondering if some of these tensions could be related to different approaches to
work, especially between faculty and staff. In this 20-minute presentation, we will report on the preliminary findings of our
qualitative study of faculty and staff attitudes towards work. Through questionnaires and interviews, we will explore how each
group views work in terms of time management, goal setting, ownership of tasks, and long-term career objectives. Using
Burke’s concept of a “terministic screen” we will be seeking to understand how people’s position in the institution affects their
approach to work.
EXPLORING NEW AND OLD READING ALOUD PRACTICES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THREE TUTORING METHODS
H.8
Rebecca Block, Daytona State College
Reading texts aloud during tutoring sessions is common practice. In an attempt to examine this practice, which is as prevalent
as it is understudied, this presentation discusses the results of a study that analyzed three different types of reading aloud
methods in tutoring sessions and their effects on those sessions. These methods include the two most common forms of reading aloud, client-read and tutor-read, as well as a third method that is new to writing centers: “point-predict,” a method based
on peer-review research. This study indicates that the seeming “safe harbor” of traditional reading practices may not have the
positive effects on writer control and engagement many hope for; additionally, traditional methods may generate a heavy focus
on local issues (65%-75%) regardless of the needs of the client or text. Conversely, the new method, point-predict, appears to
catalyze a stronger focus on issues of content and organization, and to elicit a higher level of client participation and engagement. This presentation concludes by outlining some of the possible implications of this study for both future research and writing center practice.
WHOSE IDEAS COUNT THE MOST? A STUDY OF CITATION PRACTICES IN WRITING CENTER JOURNAL
For academic fields, articles in peer-reviewed journals play a critical role to regulate and display knowledge. Examined over
time, the topics of those articles offer one way to understand which areas have gained currency at certain moments and which
have been neglected. However, an additional aspect of academic knowledge making are an article’s citations, as these citation
practices offer a view of several aspects: What and who counts at a particular time to support an author’s argument? What authors are being cited and how? With what other disciplines is an author aligning him or herself? Tracing that knowledge making
is the project of this presentation, specifically though the citation practices of contributing authors to Writing Center Journal.
Through a study of what and who has been cited over the 30-year history of WCJ, I show that our knowledge making has ebbed
and flowed along with the currents of popular authors in composition studies as a whole and with the flow of topics that gain
currency due to cultural circumstance and economic crisis. Overall, the study of citation practices in WCJ offers one view of our
field’s history, authority, and knowledge making.
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H.9
MENCKEN
SAILING SMOOTHLY TOWARDS PUBLICATION: A WORKSHOP WITH EDITORS AND REVIEWERS OF THE WRITING LAB NEWSLETTER
Michael Mattison, Wittenberg University; Janet Gebhart Auten, American University; Muriel Harris, Purdue University
Do you have an idea for—or draft of—an article about writing center work? Are you thinking of revising your IWCA conference
presentation into an article or a Tutor's Column? Would you like to talk about a topic for a potential article or simply learn more
about the publication process? If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, this workshop is for you. The editors of Writing
Lab Newsletter, along with some reviewers, will offer an overview of the publication process—from submission to publication.
They will share insights into what editors and reviewers look for as "publishable" submissions and offer guidelines for those
interested in writing or being a reviewer for WLN. Participants will also have a chance to share ideas for articles and receive
feedback on how those topics might appeal to readers.
H.10
E. A. POE
WCONLINE DEMONSTRATION, Richard Hay
H.9—H.10
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H.11
PRATT A
TRADITIONAL AND UNDERPREPARED STUDENTS: CORRELATIONS
David Dedo, Samford University
Assessing our program effectiveness is indeed charting a “current” in our work. Previous research has focused on our role in
helping students navigate their college careers. The research presented in this session hopes to expand on that earlier work as
well as suggest future direction for further research. We are interested in both our “traditional” students and those considered academically underprepared, and we have looked at correlations between the use of our tutorial services and a number
of variables: High School—GPA, Class Rank, SAT/ACT Score; College—GPA (Overall), GPA (Core Courses), GPA (1st year Writing/Speaking courses), Retention Rates for both College Populations. We hope to examine some of our common assumptions
regarding our programs (in relation to student success) in light of these correlations. We will conclude with suggested directions for future research from the programmatic perspective.
OUTCOMES-BASED ASSESSMENT IN WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM PROGRAMS AND WRITING CENTERS
H.11
Melina Baer, Jackson State Community College
Assessment using measurable student learning outcomes (SLOs) is a relatively new phenomenon outside academic departments.
For student support units like writing centers, assessment has historically centered on qualitative measures like satis action surveys or usage statistics. Today, WCs and WAC programs are Increasingly required to develop measurable SLOs despite operating
within the same non-instructive parameters as always. For many institutions, the pattern of assessment is required not only by
institutions but also by state, regional, or national accrediting agencies. The presenter’s experience at two very different institutions --- a southeastern community college and a Midwestern research university --- serves as a guide to various assessment
needs, goals, and environments. The community college’s program struggled to find the best assessment tools to suit its needs,
but research and experimentation garnered significant insight into implementation and outcomes within higher education. The
university writing center considered assessment, including surveys and writing sample assessment, but received limited resources or support from the institution. From Elbow and Belanoff’s writing skills survey to portfolio evaluations of writers across
disciplines, it is time to take stock of assessment strategies and define those most useful for a variety of outcomes. Across the
country, writing listservs and publications have fostered important conversations about assessment, both qualitative and quantitative; now, we should cut loose the assessment jetsam.
CROSS CURRENTS IN WRITING CENTER ASSESSMENT:
EXAMINING CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TUTORIALS, COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND STUDENT SUCCESS
Jennifer Kunka, Francis Marion University
The real-time conversation between writer and consultant is for many writing centers our harbor; the give-and-take of the
discussion is considered our safe space, especially when compared to different approaches, such as email consultations. As
Mabrito (2000) points out, electronic communication between writer and reader “offers a substantially different learning experience for both tutor and student, one characterized by the absence of body language and other visual cues that can indicate acceptance or understanding of the discussion.” Such concerns are certainly valid, but, in certain situations—for example,
at a large metropolitan university with a large commuter population—we might well need to navigate into the open sea. This
presentation details the results of one such foray: an audio journey. In 2008, consultants at a large metropolitan university
utilized audio recorders to tape their responses to student papers. They were, in two senses of the word, sounding out their
work: they had to gauge the depth of their comments and gauge how those comments would be heard by writers. Transcripts
from those sessions show how the consultants throw audio towlines to the writers, looking to make connections in a variety of
ways. Though different than face-to-face conversations, these audio sessions allow us to leave our safe harbor and explore a
different part of the writing center ocean, creating new and exciting interactions with writers.
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H.12
PRATT B
DIVERSIFYING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EVERYDAY WRITING CENTER: THE CHALLENGES OF UNDERREPRESENTED
GRADUATE STUDENTS ADMINISTRATORS AND STRATEGIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
Arline Wilson, University of Delaware
Recent scholarship has paid increasing attention to diversity in the writing center. Works such as Anne Geller et al’s Everyday
Writing Center and Harry Denny’s Facing the Center draws our collective gaze towards issues of race and representation in
the writing center. These works challenge us to find ways to be more inclusive in our communities of writers by asking hard
questions about who gets represented as writers and tutors –- and how these individuals figure in our centers and our professional discourse. Graduate student administrators (GSAs) from under-represented groups, however, have received littleto-no attention in our disciplinary discourses. In order to address this gap, in this paper I interweave our extant scholarship
with firsthand narrative and perspectives drawn from the scholarship of higher education administration to investigate the
ways in which underrepresented GSAs face specific challenges, offer unique perspectives and can be the best agents of
change in writing center studies as well as the scholarship of Composition writ large.
OUT OF THE HARBOR AND INTO THE DEEP: WHY UNIVERSITY WRITING CENTER DIRECTORS SHOULD BE TENURE-LINE FACULTY
Lori Baker, Southwest Minnesota State University
H.13
PRESTON
USING SPANISH WHILE TUTORING ENGLISH:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF SESSIONS INVOLVING BILINGUAL TUTORS AND STUDENTS
Kevin Dvorak, St. Thomas University; Shanti Bruce, Nova Southeastern University; Aileen Valdes, St. Thomas University
This presentation will discuss initial results of an IWCA Research Grant-funded project that examines how Spanish is used
during writing center-based tutoring sessions between bilingual (English- and Spanish-speaking) tutors and students. Based
on anecdotal evidence provided by St. Thomas University’s University Writing Center staff, the hypothesis is that Spanish is
used at two critical points during sessions: 1) to develop rapport through linguistic solidarity and 2) to work through occasional moments of confusion when words and/or ideas are clear in the primary language (Spanish) but not the secondary
(English). Presenter 1 will provide a theoretical framework for the project and will discuss the project’s research methods.
Presenter 2 will discuss initial research findings based on the following questions: 1) How do bilingual (English- and Spanishspeaking) tutors use Spanish as a pedagogical tool during writing center tutoring sessions with Spanish-speaking students?
2) How do bilingual students engage with bilingual tutors who use Spanish as a tool during writing center tutoring sessions?
3) How do bilingual tutors engage with bilingual students who use Spanish during writing center tutoring sessions? Presenter
3 will act as a presentation respondent, asking questions about and offering insights into tutoring bilingual and non-native
speakers of English.
H.12—H.13
In the twenty-five years since Jeanne Simpson’s 1985 “Position Statement on Professional Concerns of Writing Center Directors” was published and the NCTE statement on Writing Centers was subsequently adopted, how much have things actually
changed? As the Writing Centers Research Project survey results show us, university writing center directors come from
many different institutional lines (faculty, staff, graduate students). Some are assigned to the writing center 100%, whereas
others are officially given as little as 15-25%—or in some cases, no reassignment at all, merely the title and responsibilities.
In this individual panel presentation, I will argue that university writing center directors should be tenure-line faculty. This is
not to disparage the excellent job that staff and graduate students do as directors; rather, my purpose here is to create an
argument that the field can put to use when writing center positions open up. This argument will acknowledge how institutional hierarchies, perceptions of institutional “class,” and academic traditions constrain our field’s forward movement when
writing center directors must operate from positions outside academia’s privileged lines. I will draw upon research from the
national survey, anecdotal evidence from my own experience as a tenured writing center director, comparisons to writing
program administration literature, and writing center literature to build this case, and will ask the audience to further help
develop or argue against this position.
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H. 14 SCHAEFER
WHAT TO CALL THEM AND WHY IT MATTERS: HOW WE REFER TO NONNATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKING STUDENTS
Ben Rafoth, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Census data from the US Department of Education tells us that the number of English language learners is more than 5.5 millio n in
America’s public schools. More than one in six people five years of age or older speaks a language in the home other than En glish.
When these students come to college, we refer to them by many labels – ELL, ESL, residents, immigrants, language minority students, bilinguals, multilinguals, Generation 1.5, and so on. But for many students, these labels carry a stigma. They somet imes
feel branded by a deficiency marker that destroys their anonymity, prevents them from blending in to their peer group, and is often just plain inaccurate. What does it mean to say that English is the second language to a multilingual child who speaks Spanish
at home and English at school? Or to an Asian teen who speaks accented English but is an excellent writer in English? When d o we
allow an individual to say that she is no longer an English learner? This presentation offers insights from multilingual tutors to reveal assumptions behind the labels we use to refer to various groups of multilingual students, and it offers suggestions for how to
examine these assumptions in staff meetings with tutors.
MEETING THE COMPOSITION NEEDS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITERS: A STUDY OF SPANISH WRITING CENTERS
H.14
Laura Tabor, Appalachian State University
This presentation discusses the current work on Foreign Language Writing Centers, particularly Spanish, and how they have been
implemented within the University setting. My research investigates the need for foreign language writing assistance at Appalachian State University. The topics covered include tutor selection and training, support for funding and space, and collaboration
with English Writing Centers and academic tutoring resources. While the field of writing centers has placed great emphasis on EFL
writers, very little research investigates other forms of language acquisition. By beginning the discussion on Spanish Writing Centers, more discussions about the impact of discipline-specific writing assistance may be able to begin, leading to a whole new
area of assessment and impact for writing center pedagogy.
ALONE IN A SMALL BOAT: SMALL CAMPUS WRITING CENTERS WORKING WITH NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH
Nadine Keene, Indiana University Kokomo
Much Non-Native Speakers research focuses on large universities with diverse populations. Similarly, research on 2nd language writing and Writing Centers often assumes a significant diverse population. This session will present ideas, methods,
and materials for Writing Centers at campuses with only a few NNS students. Writing centers on smaller campuses often have
no ESL professionals to consult. Yet all writing centers are seeing increasing numbers of Non-Native Speakers of English. How
can these small centers with no ESL campus support best serve these students? In Spring of 2010, my sabbatical leave addressed how the IU Kokomo writing center—a center with approximately 10 tutors and no special provisions for ESL students—could best meet the needs of Non-Native Speakers of English. This session will address my findings in the context of
centers at smaller campus writing centers, considering common concerns of both international and generation 1.5 students
and realistic methods for meeting these students’ needs. A bibliography of research on Non-Native Speakers and Writing Centers will be include to allow participants to continue their work past the conference.
Friday 11:10 am — 12:20 pm
H.15
WASHINGTON
HAVING SET SAIL: HOW STUDENTS REVISE FOLLOWING WRITING CENTER TUTORIALS
Sam Van Horne, University of Iowa; Michelle Deal, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Margaret Stahr, Catawba College
Common sense tells us that writing center tutorials facilitate revision, but very little writing center scholarship specifically addresses the relationship between tutorials and revision, or the effects tutoring has on students’ revision practices. This panel
presents research conducted within the last three years that articulates how and why students revise their writing after a writing center tutorial. Although we designed our studies with different emphases, we are all centrally concerned with similar
questions: What happens when students leave the harbor of a writing center? Have our maps helped? Did their navigation
systems work? What routes did they ultimately take? Speaker 1 will discuss the writing produced by one case study student,
and trace how the revisions she made were informed by many voices, including a writing center tutor’s. Speaker 2 will present
results of a research study and discuss how students integrated feedback from peer tutors with other feedback from classmates, instructors, or family members. Speaker 3 will share case examples from a study of 19 undergraduates’ rhetorically
based revisions and their reasons for choices made related to their writing center consultations.
H.15
Friday
KEYNOTE & LUNCH
12:30 PM—2:00 PM
LUNCH
12:45 PM
CO-CHAIRS WELCOME
12:30 am —2:00 pm
INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM
Barbara Lutz and John Nordlof
IWCA TRAVEL SCHOLARSHIPS
Shareen Grogan
IWCA RESEARCH GRANTS AWARDS
Frankie Condon
IWCA MURIEL HARRIS OUTSTANDING SERVICE AWARD
Al DeCiccio
1:20 PM
KEYNOTE
INTRODUCTION
Leigh Ryan
“HARBORS AND SEAS: THE BOTH/AND OF WRITING CENTER WORK”
Allen Brizee
IWCA
TRAVEL AWARD
WINNERS:
Sherri Winans
Evelyn Reid
Kerri Mulqueen
Christina Cavaco
Brandon Alva
Kati Duffey
Aaron Deitsch
Dae-Joong Kim
Allen Brizee, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Writing at Loyola University Maryland
where he teaches first-year composition, professional
writing, and rhetoric. He has been working in writing
centers since 1997 when he volunteered as a peer tutor
at Northern Virginia Community College. While obtaining his degrees, he also tutored in the writing centers at
Virginia Tech and Purdue University. At Purdue, Allen
worked as the Online Writing Lab (OWL) Coordinator
and was instrumental in the OWL’s redesign. In 2009,
he won the East Central Writing Centers Association
Leader of the Year Award. Allen’s scholarship focuses
on empirical research and civic engagement in writing
pedagogy. He has published in the Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication, Computers and Composition, and Technical Communication, as well as in edited
books. He has just completed a co-authored article,
“Writing Centers and Students with Disabilities,” and a
co-authored book chapter, “The Engaged Dissertation,”
for Publicly Engaged Scholarship forthcoming from
Syracuse University Graduate Press.
Friday
S1
SCHOLAR-TO-SCHOLAR
2:10 pm — 3:10 pm
INTERNATIONAL E
HELPING WRITERS WITH X: WHY AND HOW
Kim Ballard, Tim Buchanan, John Chrisman, Meghan Dykema, Carly Fricano, Dan Kenzie, Mary McCall, Patrick Love, Helena Witzke
"I DON'T USE THE WRITING PROCESS": INSPIRATION 8 NAVIGATES THE OPEN SEAS OF THE RECURSIVE WRITING PROCESS
Alex Rosales and Laura Crook
A WRITING CENTER ASSESSING A WAC PROGRAM
Mike Anderson, Ann DePriest, Taylor Eagan, Amelie Hanlon, Anna Hegland, Emily Moss, Ali Pillard, Beth Wallace, Haley Welby
THE TYBEE ISLAND STAFF DEVELOPMENT COURSE
Holly Bouma-Johnston, Ellen Burns, Karin Carter, Amber Caylor, Emily Hipps, Spencer Roth, Katie Selinger, Sally Stark
NAVIGATING THE “DIRECTIVENESS” SPECTRUM: RE-EXAMINING TUTOR INVOLVEMENT IN WRITING CENTER SESSIONS
Courtney Frantz
HOIST THE MAIN AND SCOUR THE SEAS: NAVIGATING DIVERSE POPULATIONS TO ONE WRITING CENTER
Anthony Garrison, Curtis Scheck
A RECEPTIONIST IS WORTH EVERY PENNY
Margarette Goss
THE MOODLE AS A WRITING CENTER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Emily Cameron, Ashley Collom, Jacquie Cuddeback, Amanda Finneseth, Katie Gibson, Alex Grell, Kayla Musgjerd,
John Thornburg, Deborah Watson
A WRITING CENTER STAFF: DO THEY PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH?
Anna Barton, Caroline Burris, Hailley Fargo, Heidi Heaton, Ariel Landwehr, Krista Majcen, Millie Osburn, Alison Polivka,
Miriam Taour
WRITING CONSULTANTS AS TUGBOATS:
AN INVESTIGATION ON THE "PULL" CONSULTANT FEEDBACK EXERTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Nicole Bollinger, Catherine Hagan, Karen Johnson
"THE PEER WRITING TUTOR ALUMNI RESEARCH PROJECT"
Brad Hughes, Paula Gillespie, Harvey Kail
“WHOSE MOBY DICK IS IT, ANYWAY?” STUDENTS COLLABORATE ON THE INFORMATION DESIGN OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Nancy Karabeyoglu
TUTORING ABCS AND 123S: DIFFERENT SUBJECTS, DIFFERENT SETTINGS, DIFFERENT TUTOR IDENTITIES
Emilee C. Morgan, Miria Waldrop
ASSESSING AND ADAPTING TO THE NEEDS OF NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS IN THE WRITING CENTER
Ryan Wise; Tre Howard, Kim Stepp, Kim Brassard, Lonnie Cox, Cheron McMullen, Chase Whisenhunt
"THEY HAVE DIFFICULTY REMOVING THEIR OWN IDEAS FROM IT":
IDENTITY AND COMMUNITY IN A COLLEGE-WIDE WRITING ASSESSMENT
Angela Woodward
Friday 3:20 pm — 4:30 pm
I.1
ADAMS
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Roundtable/ NCPTW
READING AND WRITING CENTERS AS LIGHTHOUSES FOR SHIPWRECKED STUDENTS
Jesse A. Priest, Kristi Girdharry, Rebecca Katz, Meghan Hancock, and Michael Turner, University of Massachusetts—Boston
For this presentation, we will engage in a roundtable discussion of emotionally distressed students in Writing Center session s.
What happens when a session hits “stormy weather” with a student that is emotionally distressed because the ocean of academia is so treacherous and difficult to navigate? How can we, as peer tutors, hold the session together when this emotion thre atens to overtake our tutees? We will each discuss our own personal experiences dealing with emotionally distressed students,
and how we think those experiences can be framed in a way to say something about what tutors can do when our students
have become shipwrecked. We can’t simply dive in and pull them out, nor can we let them flounder. Perhaps, then, we can see
ourselves and our Writing Centers as lighthouses; providing direction and guiding our lost sailors through stormy weather.
Using our personal experiences as a foundation, we will engage our participants in a discussion of how emotion relates to our
roles as tutors. Our goal will be for all of us to arrive at a better understanding of how to navigate past this stormy weather—
and even how we might think that, sometimes, getting shipwrecked can be a good thing.
I.2
CALHOUN
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Individual/ NCPTW
DESIGNING SPACES, MAPPING DISCIPLINES: TOWARD A BETTER COLLABORATION BETWEEN WRITING CENTERS AND LIBRARIES
I.1—I.2
Jennifer L. Torreano, Grand Valley State University
Writing pedagogy recognizes that research and writing are simultaneous processes, so why are writing centers and libraries
such separate institutions? How can writing center theory and practice, and core principles in libraries, inform each other and
push each other toward better collaborative models? Finally, given their similarities and differences, how can libraries and
writing centers collaborate in physical spaces?
In this session, I will share my own research findings and begin a discussion among participants about the possibilities for collaboration between writing centers and libraries in order to streamline the research and writing process for students. The
goal of the session is to inform participants about the convergences and divergences between library and writing center theory
and to engage in a discussion with writing center directors and tutors about the logistics of collaboration, including the design
and use of a physical space.
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Panel/ NCPTW
LOUNGING AROUND: TUTORING BEYOND THE WRITING CENTER
Angela Woodward and Stephanie Cheslock, Edgewood College
The Edgewood College residence hall tutoring program breaks the boundary between academia and student life. Many times it
seems impossible to picture truly productive academic work occurring in freshman dormitories, but our program, launched by
a sophomore tutor and now in its second year, has made this more than possible, it’s turned it into a reality. By blurring the
lines of this binary, we have discovered new opportunities for learning. Our freshman res hall tutors offer writing sessions in
many different locations, ways, and time periods, often creating crazy and unexpected situations, shedding light on some limitations of a traditional tutoring session. From two a.m. on a Sunday in a dormitory lounge to two p.m. on a Wednesday afternoon at a picnic table outside, these sessions open up many more doors for both the tutor and the student.
Our presentation investigates how a traditional frame for tutoring may shut some students out, in spite of our intentions to be
open to all. And we look at how breaking the binaries between academic and social may then create a looser structure for
writing work, with accompanying risks and pleasures.
I.2
CALHOUN (continued)
Practice & Application/ Individual/ NCPTW
NAVIGATING THE CURRENTS TO FIND A GOOD WRITING SPACE: WRITING CENTERS AS WRITING ENVIRONMENTS
Samantha A. Howard, Grand Valley State University
Do writers' environments affect their work and their productivity? If so, how, and why? Where do writers write? And why isn't it
at the writing center? My research findings demonstrate the importance of a good writing environment and argues that if writing centers became spaces for writers to write, they could expand their pedagogy to intervene during the writing process and
build a supportive community of writers. My presentation outlines what an ideal writing space could and should be for various
kinds of writers. This session will explain reasons why writing centers should remodel their spaces so that writers can write in the
center, rather than simply drop by for tutoring help. Writing centers already pride themselves by running on a model of active
and social learning, which could only be expanded by creating spaces for writers to write together. The goal of this session is for
its participants to see ways that they can take what's already in their writing center to create a more conducive writing space.
I.3
HOPKINS
SAILING HOME: A RETURN TO LANGUAGE THROUGH THE LENS OF MUSIC
Karen-Elizabeth Moroski, Penn State University
Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Roundtable/ NCPTW
TUTORING THE NON-WRITER: WHERE DESIGN MEETS DISCOURSE
Cassandra E. Holden, Alexander Cavaluzzo, Sewit SIum, and Yecca Zeng, Fashion Institute of Technology
Everyone experiences sessions where the topic at hand is very personal. Design philosophies are no exception. As peer writing
consultants at a school that offers majors in various art and design fields, we work with students pursuing anything from fas hion
design to toy design to interior design. Often, such majors and fields of interest put a great deal of emphasis solely on the visual
intricacies of their work. Many of these students have a clear aesthetic, but they have trouble conveying ideas in their pe rsonal
statements. It is our job to help them think through their design process so that they can accurately support their work text ually. As tutors, we often encounter situations where the tutee studies a field that does not focus on the importance of writing.
Therefore, the speakers on this panel will demonstrate ways to help non-writers find an appropriate voice to communicate their
ideas. We will accomplish this by discussing both student and professional examples of art and design writing. We believe th at
tutors must facilitate a conversation and create a relationship between writing, the student, and his or her work.
Technology/ Individual/ NCPTW
FILM AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
Davey P. Rockwell, Penn State University
While similarities between writing and video communication exist, it is the differences that are classifying the way their in struction
is handled. Writing is a process. Video making is a technology. Student writing is held to a much higher rhetorical standa rd than
student video making is. This presentation will consider how a technological focus on video communication changes the way st udents deliver their message. The presenter of this session will argue from a tutor’s perspective how technological issues ar e actually a lower-order concern, while a knowledge of film language is the higher. Tutors, who already have learned to expect more o ut
of student writing, may be in the best position to progress to a more comprehensive instruction of student video. Participan ts in
this interactive session will be asked to consider a sample student video in the same way they would student writing in a tut orial.
I.2—I.3
Tutors may occasionally find themselves immersed solely in helping tutees meet the criteria of various prompts, mechanically
correcting grammar errors, and focusing on the larger task at hand: the improvement of the paper. However, at times the very
root of our passion for tutoring goes unremembered: we forget that, as tutors, we are ardent lovers of language as an entity itself, rather than language solely as a means to an end. Furthermore, we have internalized the rules and regulations of our task so
completely that we struggle to articulate the “whys” of writing - not only to tutees, but also to ourselves - even though we excel
at explaining the "hows." By comparing musical communication and terminology to the rhetoric and thought-process involved in
writing, one may come to develop a deeper appreciation for the organization of the written word, see more clearly the necessity
of grammar, the importance of cohesion and flow, and most importantly the effectiveness of nuance and honesty in writing.
I.4
CARROLL
LESSONS FROM THE SHOOTER: CREATING A SAFE HARBOR AFTER THE UNTHINKABLE HAPPENS
Brenda Meisel, Dave Bausch, Ricardo Castagnello, Maksim Klimovich, Robert "Bobby" Gray, and Christopher Stallings,
Northern Virginia Community College—Woodbridge Campus
On December 8, 2009, a disgruntled student walked into one of our fourth floor classrooms, pulled out a high-powered rifle,
and started shooting. We had a tutor embedded in that classroom as well as a Center full of students and tutors on the third
floor. This event has permanently shaped all of us on campus. It has opened our eyes to the fact that we had existed in a
blissful world where places of learning (and Writing Centers are the epitome of that) are safe harbors. That vision was violently disrupted that day, and we immediately went into action to return the “safe” to our harbor. While we hope no other
campus will face an event this frightening, the unthinkable is out there, and we should be ready for ALL emergencies:
weather, power-failures, national crisis, etc. We will address the lessons learned (the hard way) and lead attendees through a
series of questions and scenarios to help them create a plan of action for when the waters get frighteningly rough. We hope
they will leave with a concrete action plan and with the questions they need to face to assure the safety of their Centers, their
tutors, and their clients.
I.5
INTERNATIONAL A
UNCHARTED TERRITORY:
CASE STUDIES IN COLLABORATING WITH TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TO PROMOTE WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
I.4—I.6
Amber Jensen, Edison High School; Beth Blankenship, Oakton High School
In its first year, the Edison Writing Center was “safely” docked within the English Department, where 95% of tutoring sessions
focused on writing for English classes. While tutors were trained in writing across the curriculum, rarely did they tutor lab reports or historical research. Launching into uncharted territory, we sought to address and assess the school’s WAC culture in a
way that had not been done before: How (and how much) was writing taught, not just assigned? What did teachers know
about teaching writing? What perceptions did students have about writing in the disciplines? How could writing center tutors
collect relevant information, engage in conversations, produce materials, and diffuse tension around a WAC initiative from a
bottom up approach? In this interactive workshop, EWC directors and tutors will present case studies of trial and error, looking at various ways the writing center functions to promote a WAC culture within the institution. Participants will engage in
discussion, sharing ideas from their experience around the case studies. This session should be useful for participants from
both emerging and established writing centers; it will draw from the vision, knowledge and experience of tutors, directors, and
staff of high school and university writing centers.
I.6
INTERNATIONAL B
KEEPING THE CONVERSATION GOING: THE OWL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE
John Chapin and Matthew Falk, University of Baltimore
We will demonstrate the new Online Writing Link at the University of Baltimore which provides feedback on student papers
using MP3 audio files with highlighted text documents. Because feedback given outside of a face-to-face context loses the richness of traditional writing center conversation, we designed our OWL to keep the feel and practice of dialogue intact. Our
demonstration can enrich the practices and experiences of both writing consultants and students, in that our OWL weds traditional methods and technology in an easy-to-use manner. John Chapin will present the OWL’s successes and challenges from
his Writing Center coordinator’s viewpoint, including information on the technical side of setting up an OWL, working with
programmers, fine-tuning glitches, and some of the pedagogical theory behind our use of audio feedback on student papers.
John Brenner will demonstrate the OWL’s feedback process. He will show how we approach the student’s submission, record
spoken commentary using Audacity freeware, and return the documents to the student to maintain the dialogic nature of writing center practice. Finally, our student presenter will talk about the implications of audio feedback from a student’s standpoint. Participants will be encouraged to ask questions, raise concerns, or share experiences throughout the presentation.
I.7
JEFFERSON
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Roundtable/ NCPTW
CURRENTS IN WRITING CENTER PEDAGOGY: UNDERTOW FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DIRECTIVE TUTORING
George H. Cooper, Brad Estes, Sarah Friedman, and Matt Kelley, University of Michigan
Although first printed over 25 years ago, Stephen North’s adage that peer tutoring should improve the writer as well as the
writing remains compelling. As persistent if not more compelling is the principle of non-directive tutoring, especially as represented in Jeff Brooks’s essay on minimal marking that argues “we need to make the student the primary agent in the writing
center session.” Although no one would entirely reject that position, writing center scholarship since North and Brooks has
consistently challenged its purity. Successive editions of the St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors reflect the undertow in
essays by Marilyn Cooper, Beth Boquet and Linda Shamoon and Deborah Burns. Two instructors at University of Michigan have
found that in spite of the undertow, the message of non-directive tutoring remains powerful, so powerful that, once advocated or observed, directive measures seem somehow wrong, especially among those who have learned the lesson for the first
time. For this Roundtable, two instructors and two peer tutors will discuss peer tutoring pedagogy and practice with regard to
directive and non-directive tutoring to better understand the persistence of non-directive principles even when scholarship
advocates the acceptance of more directive methods. Audience participation will be highly encouraged.
I.8
MCKELDON
THREE APPROACHES TO WC CASE STUDIES: LINGUISTIC, PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC, AND ORGANIZATIONAL
Carol Severino, Courtenay Bouvier, and Zahid Choudhury, University of Iowa
The purpose of the session is to demonstrate the multi-disciplinary nature of writing center work and how each approach
sheds a different light and nets different insights on what we do. Following the talks, audience members will share their own
approaches to writing center work: Through what lenses do others view what happens in writing centers?
I.9
MENCKEN
Practice & Application/ Workshop/ NCPTW
SENDING MIXED MESSAGES: THE ROLE OF WRITING AND SPEECH IN TUTORING SESSIONS
Elise R. Lorenz, Jacob Blumner, and Brian Orr, University of Michigan—Flint
In “The Shifting Relationship Between Speech and Writing,” Peter Elbow describes the ways writing and speech are indelible
and ephemeral. This workshop will explore how those descriptors fit within and outside of writing center pedagogy in both
writing and speech tutoring. With students bringing writing, speech, and multimodal assignments into writing centers, tutors
need to be able to consider how different modes of communication, within an assignment and within a tutoring session, affect
communication.
Participants will consider the following: Do speech acts, such as reading a paper aloud in a session, produce the atmosphere
tutors and writers want, or might our verbal and nonverbal communication belie our goals. What does writing and speech
tutoring pedagogy tell us about the role of authorial voice and audience for a paper and for a speech? How are they similar
and the same? Participants will read silently and aloud different texts to explore how writing and speech intersect, questioning
accepted practice in writing tutoring, and comparing different tutoring pedagogies to explore best practice. Participants will
also extend Elbow’s discussion to include digital rhetoric by considering what role it can play in more traditional tutoring sessions as well as tutoring in digital environments.
I.7—I.9
Scholars such as Muriel Harris, Harvey Kail, and Stephen North have argued that writing center work lends itself beautifully to
case studies—of students, tutors, tutoring pairs, the centers themselves and their institutional contexts. In this panel, four
speakers present writing center case studies from four different perspectives. The first speaker uses a linguistic approach, focusing on a second language writer’s acquisition and use of vocabulary in writing. The second speaker has a psychotherapeutic
approach, illustrating how the tutor-student dialogue informs the continuously developing identity of both parties. The third
speaker takes an organizational approach, analyzing writing centers in the US and Turkey and the political factors that make
them different.
I.10
E. A. POE
THE PEER TUTORING CENTER: A DOCK FOR ALL DISCIPLINES?
Autumn J. Chapoff, Kristen Bialik, Coleen Cirocco, and Stefanie Gibson, University of Michigan
Can an engineering student view an English major as his or her peer? Students come to the writing center from all disciplines;
however tutors are a less diverse group. Our experience as tutors at a large university has lead us to believe that there have
not been significant advancements in providing multi-disciplinary tutoring. Could a tutoring center be more effective and inviting if tutors were actively chosen from specific fields? The current system may act as a deterrent for students who feel their
needs would not be met in what they see as a center run by and for English majors. Although the process of explaining a concept to an unfamiliar audience may help students solidify their own thoughts and ideas, we fear this one-sided explanation
may hinder collaboration. Furthermore, in a time where students can independently access guidelines for format and style,
our help should surpass that of a handout. Our unique perspectives as a group of two literature and two science majors allows
us to represent a variety of students. This presentation will consist of a multi-media component and an interactive discussion
featuring conversations gathered from representatives of multiple disciplines.
I.11
PRATT A
The Writing Center and the Community/ Panel/ NCPTW
BUILDING BRIDGES/ MAKING CONNECTIONS
I.10—I.11
Denise Pichardo, St. Thomas University; Katherine Palacio, Monsignor Edward Pace High School
The University Writing Center (UWC) at St. Thomas University started a satellite writing center at Monsignor Pace High School
designed to strengthen the educational bond between a local high school and university. Panelists will discuss a satellite writing center in a local high school designed to help teach/tutor student-writers specific academic skills that enhances their college careers, and also makes them more confident about their writing and in working with peers and tutors. This center also
teaches the students how to handle feedback and how to edit papers without just focusing on grammar and mechanics. This
presentation will discuss the initial stages of this joint venture, its progress, and how each institution, the instructor, the tutors,
and the students benefit from this experience. Mrs. Palacio will discuss aspects of this experience from the perspective of
Monsignor Pace High School and as the Writing instructor; and Ms. Pichardo will discuss similar aspects from the perspective
of St. Thomas University and that of a tutor at the University Writing Center.
Practice and Application/ Panel/ NCPTW
BRIDGING THE GAP:
SMOOTHING WRITERS’ TRANSITIONS BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE THROUGH WRITING CENTER COLLABORATIONS
Matthew D. Capdevielle, Henry Hodes, Kati S. Macaluso, Kelsey Kelliher, Elizabeth Lombard, Esther Owolabi, Laura Berlage,
Mike Trucco, Julie Tentler, Calie Gihl, Dylan Krieger, William Stewart, and Stephanie Mueth,
University of Notre Dame and Fenwick High School
Recognizing the disparity between high school and university-level writing, the tutors from the Fenwick High School Writing
Center and the Writing Center at the University of Notre Dame are collaborating to explore how tutors at the secondary and
university levels can serve as a bridge to ease the transition between high school and college-level writing. Our conversations
have revealed several problems that stifle students’ preparedness for college writing: the lack of an argument, a paucity of
developed support, an unwillingness to complicate arguments with counterarguments, and an excess of summary. To counter
these problems, we will form two focus groups: one with high school teachers and one with university First-Year Composition
professors. Each group will meet with a goal of determining how tutors and instructors can ease the transition of writers between senior year of high school and freshman year of college. Our presentation will share the findings of this collaboration,
both through first-hand accounts from our tutors and through select video clips from our focus groups. Audience members
will come to better understand the ways in which secondary and university-level writing centers can engage in creative collaborations to prepare students more fully for college-level writing.
I.12
PRATT B
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Workshop/ NCPTW
EVOCATIVE EMPATHY IN THE WRITING CENTER:
THE IMPORTANCE OF PSYCHOTHERAPUTIC TECHNIQUES IN TUTORING AND TUTOR EDUCATION
Molly J. Herold, Thomas Belmore, Rachel Brylawski, Sari Causey, Janai Kinnebrew, Charlotte Mitchell, Leo Neufeld, and
Courtney Newsome, Warren Wilson College
Tutors are not therapists. Tutors are individuals with special knowledge about many aspects of writing and have undergone
training in tutoring techniques. Therapists are individuals with special knowledge about psychology and have undergone training in psychotherapy or “talk therapy.” What tutors call non-directive tutoring, therapists call “hearing the implicit message.”
These terms have a different language, but share the same goal—to guide the writer or client to come upon the answer
hirself*. This is where great sessions happen, where previously frustrated writers say, “Ah-hah! I had it in me all along!” This
insight is where progress and learning take place.
This presentation will explore connections between modern counseling techniques and what we are often already doing in our
writing centers. In recognizing these techniques as applicable to writing centers, we hope to illuminate the ways in which they
can be expanded for the writer and for tutor education. This workshop will begin with a presentation of the research and concept, and continue with an interactive activity. The workshop will end with a guided discussion of the topic.
*gender-neutral pronoun
I.13
PRESTON
HELPING WRITERS WITH CREATIVE WRITING: HOW AND WHY
Helena Witzke, Tim Buchanan, John Chrisman, and Laura Citino, Western Michigan University
Our four presenters will explore these concerns during an interactive workshop. We will share creative writing pieces with audience members to show how writing center sessions focused on creative writing can be viewed in terms of audience, genre,
and style. We will demonstrate such efforts in sample consultations and will share key questions consultants can ask about
creative writing pieces. We will also ask groups to workshop a creative writing piece each of us has written. We will conclude
with questions and answers and the distribution of a bibliography of resources we have found useful in our work.
I.12—I.13
Most writing center consultants are not trained in creative writing, and many struggle when helping students with creative
writing pieces. Because all writing is creative, a consultant’s struggle when helping creative writers may seem odd. However,
specific problems include the supposed subjectivity of the material, consultants’ lack of comfort with talking about issues in
creative writing processes and pieces, and the tendency—because higher order issues seem so slippery—to focus on mechanics.
I.14
SCHAEFER
PEER TUTORS AT THE HELM: EXPANDING THE REACH OF THE WC
Kathleen Gregoire, Emily Achilles, and Jocelyn Cordell, Merrimack College
Peer tutors will discuss how they have taken the lead in expanding conversations within and beyond the Writing Center through
three key projects: a tutor-driven wiki designed to create an interactive Tutor Guide; a Creative Writers Group developed in
partnership with the English Club and the Diversity Education Center; and a Conversations Across Cultures table engaging students from diverse linguistic, national, ethnic, and racial backgrounds in informal dinner talk. All three projects involve tutors
venturing out of the safe harbor of the more traditional Writing Center and steering their own course through waters that are
not always familiar and not always calm. Through development and implementation of the projects, however, the tutors have
helped to establish a vibrant learning community within the center and to broaden that community to include other groups—
both academic and social--on campus. Each tutor will explain the development and implementation of one project (45 minutes), after which the audience will share ideas about ways in which peer tutors can venture out of their safe harbors and into
less familiar waters through projects relevant to their particular centers (30 minutes).
I.15
WASHINGTON
Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Individual/ NCPTW
YEARNING TO WRITE FREE: A SAFE(R) SPACE FOR CREATIVE WRITING
I.14—I.15
Geneva M. Canino, Daniel Haymes, Michael Mohon, and Jessie St. Amand, University of Oklahoma
Our presentation will first address the complications that writing center consultants face when collaborating on creative writing. The increased subjectivity concomitant with genres outside of expository writing often causes even seasoned consultants to
become unsure, and to ask themselves: What right do I have to suggest changes to writing that isn’t expository? How much
attention should I devote to rhetorical elements when I know that the teacher will not be reading with a specific, argumentative
structure in mind?
To tackle these issues, we determined that we needed to start a creative writing support group in the center, which will act as a
“safe harbor” for students in creative writing class and also students who simply wish to work on their creative pieces but have
no outlet to continue their learning. It is our hope that, in addition to the above goals, students and consultants alike will learn
to use the writing center as naturally for creative writing as for expository writing. With an expanded view of the writing center,
including a stronger focus on creative writing, we become more able to give all writers a space to develop, and not simply leave
them to the sharks.
J.1
CALHOUN
HELPING WRITERS WITH STANDARDIZED WRITING TESTS: HOW AND WHY
Kim Ballard, Carly Fricano, and Meghan Dykema, Western Michigan University; Patrick Love, Daytona State College
Writing centers often offer workshops about writing essays for class tests, but few centers help students improve their ability to
write for such standardized tests as state educator exams, GREs, and more. Because this writing need is often seen as being
best met through a workshop (even one students pay to attend) rather than through sessions in the center and because writers’
needs are hard to diagnose in this situation, few consultants feel comfortable helping students who ask for help with such wr iting.
This interactive workshop will offer strategies for helping writers prepare for standardized writing exams. We review our proven
approach: we recreate the exam experience for writers and then ask them to discuss the decisions they made during the simulation; help writers collapse invention and organization decisions through an understanding of audience expectations; and help
writers grow comfortable with testing through repetition and positive reinforcement. Participants will learn to create test
prompts, will map out responses to prompts, and will learn proofreading strategies and spelling techniques students can use.
J.2
HOPKINS
NAVIGATING THE ROUGH SEAS OF GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION
J.1—J.2
Jennifer Finstrom, DePaul University
I am revisiting Muriel Harris’s question: “Can grammar be taught?” In the writing center, it is not the peer tutors primary responsibility to be a grammar instructor; however, that is often what students perceive and even ask for. Researching the many different—often dissenting—voices in conversation about the teaching of grammar, can leave the peer tutor bewildered about how
to proceed. I advocate that the best way to bring grammar into the peer tutorial is through awareness of rhetorical choice. However, the individual student’s knowledge or lack thereof must be taken into account; each tutorial is unique. While Patrick Hartwell maintains that grammatical instruction is harmful for what the student has acquired through instincts and literacy, I maintain that giving students usage rules can instill confidence by working with what they already know. Martha Kolln’s work in rhetorical grammar also brings context and audience into working with grammar, an aspect which I think is ideally suited to the
peer tutorial. While the ongoing conversation about the instruction of grammar will continue, the peer tutor can take the parts
of that conversation best suited to use in the writing center and apply it for the benefit of student writers.
HELPING STUDENTS WITH GRAMMAR ANXIETY: PRACTICAL STRATEGIES FOR WRITING CENTER TUTORS
Carla A. Lake, University of Maryland, College Park
Anxiety about grammar affects nearly every writer at some stage. The student coming to the writing center who says, “I just
need someone to look over my grammar,” is far from an uncommon sight, and it’s hard for tutors to resist hovering over their
papers with a red pen, despite recent tutoring theories that emphasize the development of ideas over editing the language behind them. But where do all these prescriptivist rules about language usage come from? Why do they seem so elusive, and so
vital? Most importantly, how can we make students feel less worried about their grasp on grammar rules?
This presentation will include a 5-minute overview of grammar issues pertinent to tutors, and breakout discussions with the
presenter on the topic, with a focus on practical strategies for coping with “grammar anxiety” in tutees.
J.3
INTERNATIONAL B
RIDING THE WAVES OF REMEDIATION: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENHANCING WRITING SKILLS
Penny H. Speas, Shelia Cooper, and Mia Mitchell, Bennett College
This presentation will contribute to writing center theory and practice by focusing on the unique challenges and opportunities
faced by writing center staff at a small institution primarily serving African American women. We will launch with an exploration
of directive vs. non-directive tutoring when working with the basic writer. Our voyage will continue by examining the writing
center’s role in remediation in the first-year writing course and the challenge to dispel misconceptions about the mission of the
writing center. Finally, we will tackle the challenge of aligning realistic student progress with faculty expectations of the campus
writing center in an effort to anchor a solid foundation for writing center success. Presenters will engage participants in an exchange of ideas related to best practices when the writing center is viewed as a safe harbor where students can release inhibitions about writing, as well as a means by which to escape the safety net of correctness in search of voice, craft and discovery.
J.4
JEFFERSON
ASSESSING AND ADAPTING TO THE NEEDS OF NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS IN THE WRITING CENTER
Chase C. Whisenhunt, Tre Howard, and Ryan Wise, The University of North Carolina at Pembroke
J.5
MCKELDON
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Panel/ NCPTW
I AM THE CAPTAIN, WHERE ARE WE GOING?
Karen Nulton, Caroline Fraissinet, Alan McDonell, Kathleen McFadden, Ananya Praharsh, and Ashley Reddy, Drexel University
Although the question of "peerness" is part of a tutor's training, most tutors have confusing experiences dealing with the perceived authority of working in the writing center. Many students expect that peer readers will direct and control the session. In
this session (part performance/part interactive discussion) peer readers will read creative pieces written in response to this
concern, in order to share experiences and stimulate discussion focusing on the expectations inherent in working with nontraditional students, upper-class and graduate students, reading papers outside of your major and the pressure of being identified as a writer. We hope to provide insights and shine a beacon of understanding, but not necessarily to steer the ship back to
shore. Part of writing is the acceptance of uncertainty.
J.3—J.5
New York Harbor, 1907: Over one million immigrants from all over the world arrive at Ellis Island to begin a new life in America.
Like new immigrants, students often view college as unfamiliar, a place with language and customs that they may not understand. Our Writing Center, much like Ellis Island, welcomes students from diverse backgrounds into the university and assists
them in deciphering academic language. We have identified one group, non-traditional (NT) students, as having different needs
than their traditional counterparts. Our research assesses the diverse needs of NT students and addresses how writing centers
can adapt to better serve this growing population of students. Our preliminary survey data shows that NT students tend to have
different writing practices than traditional students and that they rely on the writing center differently than a traditional student does. Our focus groups with these students reveal their fascinating stories and educational histories. Also, they encourage
NT students to make suggestions for our development and improvement even as we assist them in adapting to the “new world”
of the university. Our roundtable participants will present our research findings and suggest future directions for harboring nontraditional students as they adjust to the university.
J.6
MENCKEN
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Individual/ NCPTW
FOUCAULT VISITS THE WITTENBERG WRITING CENTER: NEGOTIATING PRESENT PRACTICE BY REVISING HISTORICAL FRAMEWORKS
Laura E. McLaughlin, Wittenberg University
Michel Foucault’s genealogical approach provides a historical framework for analyzing institutions and the ways they shape pe ople. For this session, the presenter conducted a genealogy of her own writing center at Wittenberg University. Employing Fo ucault’s ideas on discipline, power, normality, and subjection, this session illustrates how the mediating position of a writi ng center
can be both disciplinary and liberating. With a history rooted in remediation, representative of the time when “underprepared ”
students began attending universities, the Wittenberg Writing Center is still haunted by the ghost of conventions past. The current ethical questions we face—about collaboration, student-advisor relationships and proofreading—are largely begotten from
the writing center’s historical roots, as an institutional initiative to “fix” students who did not fit into the status quo. Despite its
ostensible mission, the Wittenberg Writing Center of today still operates in an indeterminate state: negotiating between the hierarchical linear model of higher education and an alternative context of learning, characterized by collaboration with peers. To
understand the possibilities a writing center possesses as a space of learning, we must first recognize the structures of kno wledge
and power existing in the institution of higher education, as well as what structures have historically existed.
Research & Theory/ Individual/ NCPTW
HOW WRITING CENTERS CHANGE THE WORLD: PEER TUTORING AS TRAINING FOR SOCIAL REFORM
J.6
Mae C. Walters, University of Maine
The skills we learn in the Writing Center can be used to combat oppressive ideologies, foster more collaborative and diverse
dialogue, and most of all, develop a sense of agency in the midst of a society that incites us to be passive. This
presentation will examine why the Writing Center is particularly suited to these tasks, and how skills like critical literacy and collaborative learning can be applied both inside and outside academia. Additional context will be drawn from the work
of Composition scholars who focus on social reform and the history of the Basic Writing movement.
Practice & Application/ Scholar-to-Scholar/ NCPTW
PLUNGING INTO THE DEPTHS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE: NEW CONSULTANTS PERSONALIZE THE EVERYDAY WRITING CENTER
Sherita V. Roundtree, Chelsey Breitschwerdt, and Heather Comer, Salisbury University
New peer writing consultants find themselves in a liminal state where they are transitioning from learning about writing center
practice to putting that knowledge to use. Often, new consultants find that implementing abstract theories, such as the ones
found in The Everyday Writing Center (2007), is difficult to do. As new writing consultants, we sought to make connections between our everyday lives and writing center theories. We discovered that allusions to popular culture and literary works helped
us to understand the concepts found in The Everyday Writing Center, and that by personalizing the complex writing center principles that we have yet to fully practice, we were able to bridge the gap between learning the theories in the spring semester
and practicing them in the fall. We hope that applying personal connections to theory will benefit writers by making us more
mindful consultants.
In our presentation, we will gather allusions relating to The Everyday Writing Center which will help us navigate the rough waters of our early months as new writing consultants. Our team of new consultants will keep notes about our everyday lives to
assist other prospective consultants who find themselves in the same boat.
J.7
E. A. POE
CHALLENGING THE LANGUAGE OF “NORMAL” VERSUS “ESOL” SESSIONS: A DISCUSSION OF PRACTICE AND ETHICS
Laura Greenfield, Elise Marifian, Sophie Heller, and Megan McGrath, Mount Holyoke College
How can peer mentors work productively with English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) without inadvertently “othering”
them in our discourses and practices? A number of scholars (James McDonald, Jean Kiedaisch and Sue Dinitz) argue that dominant perceptions of normative tutor and student identity are reinscribed in many tutoring handbooks and education courses.
Specifically, when sessions with ESOL students are described as somehow “different” from “normal” writing center sessions,
tutors internalize a form of linguistic or cultural profiling that is unhelpful, even harmful, to students. In this round table discussion, peer mentors from Mount Holyoke College will each briefly share their experiences, perceptions, or arguments about the
guiding question above.
They will then facilitate a dialogue with the audience, exploring the following kinds of questions: What are common perceptions
about ESOL students at our institutions? What are the prevailing discourses about working with ESOL students in our writing
centers? What strategies for working with ESOL students do our centers advocate? To what extent do these suggested strategies
inadvertently “other” ESOL students? What opportunities do we see for improving our practices?
J.7
J.8
PRATT A
Diversity/ Individual/ NCPTW
AKTUB, LIKHNA, ECRIT, WRITING: MULTILINGUAL CONSULTANTS + ESL CLIENTS = NON-ENGLISH CONSULTING
Lamiyah Z. Bahrainwala, Michigan State University
Few would disagree if I said that client understanding is paramount in peer-tutoring sessions. Consultants ask leading questions,
act as scribes, and generally treat clients like fragile beings. They do this because students look to writing centers to provide a
safe environment to discuss writing insecurities. ESL students, however, need the additional security that a consultant can understand and paraphrase their ideas back to them. If consultants share a language, native or otherwise, with a client, it may be
pragmatic to consult in that language. It could also create instant rapport. The growing number of international and/or multilingual consultants in writing centers today allows for this possibility. Yet, little time has been spent examining and debating the
potential of this strategy. Why? Because institutions believe that foreign language instruction of English language writing can
compromise the credibility of writing centers? Because bi/multilingual consultant will be seen as ‘better’? Or because it could
make clients dependant on particular consultants?
This presentation will examine the potential problems and benefits of this method. It will present the results of non-English consultations that will take place (on request) at the researcher’s current institution.
“I WANT HELP WITH MY GRAMMAR”: STRATEGIES TO TUTOR L2 WRITERS
J.8
Pisarn B. Chamcharatsri, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
In the past, English was used as a lingua franca when negotiation occurred at the port. From fragmented phrases to varieties of
accents, English has fully formed and become one of the major languages in higher education. Second language (L2) students
whose English are not their first language might struggle through their academic path especially in written formats to compose
and express their ideas down onto paper. Some teachers are not prepared to work with L2 writers often refer students to consult writing tutors at the writing centers to ‘neutralize’ their writing. When L2 writers come to the writing centers, they look for
‘safe’ space for them to receive peer feedback on their works, are not being imposed by “Standard English,” and can maintain
their L2 identities in their writing. By providing the safe space, tutors need to be equipped with diverse strategies to use in tutoring sessions.
This presentation will provide some hand-on strategies for tutors to use in tutoring L2 writers that allow both tutors and tutees
to maintain friendly and safe.
FROM THE GHANAIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM TO THE NON-DIRECTIVE APPROACH:
THE PROMOTION OF CRITICAL THOUGHT IN THE WRITING CENTER
Rachael A. Kane, Penn State University
The development of critical thinking skills is one of the main goals of many higher education institutions, Penn State included.
Critical thinking skills help us analyze the world we live in and our field of interest at a deeper level in order to make useful and
lasting advancements to society. Many education systems around the world are not as fortunate to have this focus on critical
thought. My experiences at the University of Ghana in West Africa have shown me a different side of the educational system,
one that focuses heavily on memorization. Through my involvement in an after school writing program in Accra, Ghana, I explored the mechanisms through which critical thinking skills could be connected to writing. Connecting this experience with my
knowledge of writing centers that take a non-directive approach, I will illustrate ways for writing center tutors and staff to promote the critical thinking skills of the tutee concerning his or her own writing. Audience members will be encouraged to use
their own critical thinking skills to generate practical applications of the promotion of critical thought in the writing center.
J.8
PRATT A (continued)
EXPLORING THE INTERNATIONAL TUTOR TO INTERNATIONAL STUDENT RELATIONSHIP
Ruth Canagarajah, Penn State University
This presentation seeks to explore the pros and cons of international tutor-to-international student relationships. The dominant
practice of native speaker tutors instructing ESL/international students is based on the assumption that native speakers are the
authorities in English and they are best equipped to tutor learners. Nevertheless, difficulties may still be confronted in understanding international students’ thought processes and needs since the purpose of rhetoric varies from culture to culture. I seek
to explore whether international tutors are better able to understand the needs of international students and create an enriching connection that is rewarding for developing writing proficiency. Working with an international tutor could provide learners a
safe harbor that could foster a nurturing and comfortable space for learning. Such safe harbors in the tutoring center can help
learners to navigate the open sea of academic written discourse, exploring the linguistic, social, and cultural differences that
need to be negotiated.
J.9
PRATT B
The Writing Center and the Community/ Individual/ NCPTW
THE LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER: THE ROLE OF WRITING SUPPORT STAFF IN AND OUTSIDE THE WRITING CENTER
Caroline S. Ledeboer, Caitlyn Finger, Matt Harbough, and Parveen Karim, Upper Iowa University
THE SAFE SHORES OF PROFESSIONALISM PRESENT WITHIN THE WRITING CENTER
Mercedez D. Hernandez, Kylie Novak, and Liliana Bastian, Texas A&M University
The Writing Center at Texas A&M University is a “safe, calm, embracing harbor” that promotes professionalism from a microscopic and macroscopic perspective. In terms of a microscopic scale, the writing center encourages interpersonal professionalism in the workplace. Writing Centers provide a safe environment for cultivating professional skills necessary for a successful
career. Consultants are taught to communicate effectively, build rapport, and maintain a positive attitude. The macroscopic
professionalism aspects of the writing center are the rules, the leaders, and the expectations that the consultants respect. The
"hierarchy" present within the writing center promotes respect, discipline, and proper etiquette while providing role-models for
consults to mirror.
As writing consultants, we strive in both our consultations and in the development of our workplace in order to help the writing
center run as a successful business. Though we are not selling a physical product, the writing center serves the entire university
to enhance the learning environment of Texas A&M University. The Texas A&M University Writing Center provides a secure
working environment in which consultants can harness a deeper understanding of professionalism. As qualified consultants, we
are given the chance to interact with other students while maintaining a safe ground with our mentors.
J.8—J.9
Writing support staff can take up important duties during those first few weeks when students are not yet ready to come in for
support, when our lab is a harbor without ships. During this critical first phase of the term, writing support staff at our university
contribute writing tips to a blog (often on brainstorming and starting papers), visit writing-intensive classes (sometimes as the
assigned fellow for the term), create writing support resources such as posters, handouts, or a list of easy references, respond
to submitted online writing questions, and come up with ways to light the way toward our writing lab. As consultants become
recognized for their work in the lab, they also become resources, and point the way, for students writing anywhere on campus.
The result is an engaged writing support staff, a better connection with the student community (and also with faculty), and a
more accessible and helpful atmosphere in our lab. No longer do consultants feel at loose ends during down time, but much
more like keepers of a community that welcomes writing souls.
J.10
PRESTON
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Workshop/ NCTPW
SAILING ABOVE AND BEYOND: HOW TO PREPARE TUTORS FOR A LIFE OF SERVICE
Andrew Jeter, Niles West High School; Mike Czajkowski, Illinois Wesleyan University; Colin Sato, DePaul University
As the Peer Writing Tutor Alumni Research Project has showed us, tutors can have and hold on to complicated and rich understandings of their roles in the lives of others. In this session, two former high school Literacy Center tutors will share their postgraduation journeys. From creating a new after-school program designed to assist high schoolers to cataloging “best practice”
videos of tutoring sessions, these young men have found ways to continue their community service after leaving the safe harbor
of their high school center. Participants will be given time to brainstorm and workshop possible ways that they can encourage
their tutors to continue to give after graduating.
J.11
SCHAEFER
WRITING CENTER DIRECTOR AS WPA: PERSPECTIVES FROM IWCA AND CWPA
Melissa Ianetta, Elizabeth Keenan, and Barbara Lutz, University of Delaware, Linda Bergmann, Purdue University;
Lauren Fitzgerald, Yeshiva College; Clint Gardner, Salt Lake Community College
J.10—J12
In this roundtable, IWCA members who are also active members of the Council of Writing Program Administrators will reflect
upon the differing ways in which these organizations support their professional development. Panelists will also discuss the resources offered by both organizations. Finally, they will lead the audience in a discussion of what it means to identify as both a
writing center director and a WPA.
J.12
WASHINGTON
Practice & Application/ Roundtable/ NCPTW
CREATING A COMMON LANGUAGE: REVISING CONSULTANT/WRITER DIALOGUE
Lee Ann Glowzenski and Rebekah Mitsein, Duquesne University
One role of the writing consultant is to encourage students to take the lead in consulting sessions (Severino, 2009), but students
often struggle to articulate their concerns because they conceive of their work in abstract evaluative terms (e.g. “My writing is
bad.”). Consultants can encourage writers to become active participants in the revision process by helping them both identify
what they would like to address in a session and learn the language they need to articulate those goals (e.g. “I need help with
transitions.”). This roundtable will focus on the process of creating productive writer-consultant dialogues.
After introducing the problem and briefly discussing how we define writing center language and terminology, we will break the
audience into groups and assign each a prompt (e.g. "How do I fix my paper?”, "What grade would you give this?", and "I don't
know what my instructor wants."). The audience will brainstorm how they would help students move from using vague and
abstract language to discussing their concerns in concrete and specific terms. We will then reconvene to discuss the approaches
we all use to help students learn to speak the language of the writing center.
6:00 PM—7:30 PM
SEE YOU IN BALTIMORE HOSPITALITY SOCIAL
HALL OF FAME LOUNGE
Sponsored by NCPTW! Come and meet your fellow peer writing tutors from writing centers across the
United States. This social will feature live music from rock and pop piano player Adam Knauss; snacks to
tide you over until dinner; and information on Baltimore restaurants and site seeing, including a video
on life in Baltimore by Loyola University peer writing tutors.
Friday
SIGS
6:00 pm — 7:00 pm
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
FS.1
CALHOUN
HIGH SCHOOL WRITING CENTERS
Jennifer Wells, Mercy High School, Burlingame
FS.2
HOPKINS
WRITING CENTERS IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHER CAMPUS UNITS
Robert Kjesrud, Western Washington University
FS.3
MCKELDON
WRITING CENTERS AND TECHNOLOGY
Kim Abels, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
FS.4
MENCKEN
TENURE TRACK FOR WRITING CENTER DIRECTORS
Melissa Ianetta, University of Delaware
FS.5
E. A. POE
TWO-YEAR COLLEGES
Clint Gardner, Salt Lake Community College; Brandi Blahnik, Mira Costa College; Curtis Burdette, Gogebic Community College; Jill Reglin, Lansing Community College; Sherri Winans, Whatcom Community College
FS.6
PRATT A
THE CURRENT STATE OF WRITING CENTER RESEARCH: EXPLORING OUR ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS
Kerri Jordan and Steve Price, Mississippi College
FS.7
PRATT B
SOCIAL DYNAMICS IN TUTORING
Christina Cavaco, University of Wisconsin, Marathon County
FS.8
SCHAEFER
FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING CENTERS
Neryamn R. Nieves, Franklin and Marshall College
NOTES
Saturday
SW.1 LIBERTY A
WORKSHOPS
9:30 am — 4:30 pm
SESSION 1: IWCA RESEARCH NETWORK FORUM
9:30 am—12:20 pm
Christopher Ervin and Shareen Grogan, organizers
EDITOR’S ROUNDTABLE, 9:30-10:20 am
The inaugural IWCA Research Network Forum will begin with a roundtable discussion led by three of our journals’ current
and former editors, Melissa Ianetta, Neal Lerner, and Mike Mattison. The editors general discussion topic is “how to turn
ideas into research.” All in attendance at the conference are welcome.
RESEARCH-IN-PROGRESS WORKSHOP, 10:30 am – 12:20 pm
Four researchers will present works-in-progress to the audience for discussion and feedback. Invited respondents will join
us: Harry Denny, Director of Staten Island and Queens Campus Writing Centers, St. John’s University, and Brad Hughes,
Director of the Writing Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Harry and Brad will have prepared feedback on the
works-in-progress and will initiate the feedback during each 25 minute session by sharing their prepared comments. Audience members will be able to discuss the research and offer feedback following the invited responses. All in attendance at
the conference are welcome.
Marginalization in the Language of Writing Center Scholarship: How It Impacts Our Perception and Our Future
Diane Dowdey, Sam Houston State University; Frances Crawford, San Antonio College
When Does A Writing Center Session Work? A Cross-Institutional Survey Assessing Student Satisfaction, Knowledge
Transfer, and Identity
Pam Bromley, Pomona College; Kara Northway, Kansas State University; Eliana Schonberg, University of Denver
Beyond the How-to Approach: ESL Writers, Writing Centers, and the Dominant Discourse of Academia
Bobbi Olson, University of Nebraska—Lincoln
The Development of a Cohesive Multilingual Writing Community and Its Effects on Writers and Writing Centers
Elliot Crumpley, Adam Cutler, Rachel Hedrick, and Ana M. Ribero, DePaul University
SW.2 LIBERTY A
SESSION 2: REGIONAL LEADERS NETWORK
2:10 pm—4:30 pm
Roberta Kjesrud and Shareen Grogan, organizers
DEVELOPMENT ON A DIME: CREATING MICRO-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIRECTORS AND TUTORS
Andrew Jeter, Bobbi Olson, Harry Denny, Kevin Dvorak, Roberta Kjesrud, Steve Sherwood, Teresa Joy Kramer, and
Valerie Balester
Given that economic realities have changed access to conference opportunities even at the regional level, writing center
professionals need to pursue sustainable ways to mentor each other in leadership and provide such opportunities for tutors as well. In this workshop, participants will receive a smorgasbord of innovative ideas for gathering cross-institutionally
with community of colleagues who provide challenge and foster growth. After short "knowledge cafe" style presentations, participants will then work both individually and collaboratively to create an action plan for professional development in their own contexts.
Saturday
7:45 AM—8:25 AM
K.1
7:45 am — 9:40 am
NCPTW BOARD MEETING
ADAMS
INTERNATIONAL D
Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Panel/ NCPTW
FACING THE WINDS OF CHANGE: ADULT RETURNING STUDENTS IN THE SAFE HARBOR OF THE WRITING CENTER
Allison Holland, Jennifer Atkins-Gordeeva, Harold Brown, Adrea Coley, Valerie Henley, Joshua Johnson, Mark Stanley, and
K.1—K.3
Dawn Teer, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Working with adult student learners in a writing center environment provides rich opportunities to shape the educational futu res
of non-traditional and often first-generation students. Of all the clients served by writing centers, adult-returning students may
be one population that gains the most from their writing center experiences. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock is th e largest metropolitan university in the state, and over 70% of the enrolled undergraduate and graduate student population can be
categorized as non-traditional adult student learners. Working with a special service called the Adult Student Advocacy program,
co-founded by two former writing center interns over 20 years ago, this presentation explores the results of a recent student
survey conducted by UALR writing center to study the special needs of adult student learners who used the University Writing
Center consistently over several semesters. The results explain how adult learners’ educational experiences, writing improvement, and personal growth were enhanced by utilizing the services of a writing center over time, and highlights how writing center conferences between adult learner writing tutors and their adult learner clients can enhance and refine the educational g oals
of both groups over time. The sessions are interactive and participants will be involved in revising the survey for their own writing
centers, and the results of collaborative mini-discussions will be compiled and sent to participants following the conference.
K.2
CALHOUN
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Individual/ NCPTW
BUILDING STUDENT LEADERSHIP IN THE WRITING CENTER: PEER MENTORSHIP AND EVALUATION DURING TUTORING
Laurel Eatherly and Paul Henne, Lake Forest College
This session will offer strategies to help tutors in a position of leadership effectively mentor new tutors throughout the training
process. Using their center’s administrative structure, training methods, policies, and processes as well as their experience leading a staff of undergraduate tutors, the presenters will explain how to evaluate new tutors and provide feedback in a way that
encourages them to articulate their strengths and weaknesses while continually reflecting on and improving their practice. Participants will learn how to structure conversations with new or less experienced tutors using specific language and clear strategies to ensure that these conversations effectively achieve the following: help new tutors achieve their goals for improvement,
provide encouragement, and maintain open lines of communication. The session will conclude with a discussion about balancing the role of mentor and evaluator.
K.3
CARROLL
Lightning Session: Safe Harbors 1
THE WRITING CENTER SPACE: IS YOUR CENTER DESIGNED TO BE A SAFE HARBOR?
Monika Wysocki and GWU Writing Center Staff, The George Washington University
Is your writing center space and location conducive to your style of peer tutoring? Our center at The George Washington Unive rsity is in a time of transition – we have just moved from a space tucked away in the corner of an academic building to a central
location in our main undergraduate library. From desk arrangements to ambient light, our peer tutors will discuss how differe nt
spaces affect tutoring effectiveness, and offer our insights about the top strategies you can use in your writing center to spruce
up your space!
Saturday
K.3
8:30 am — 9:40 am
CARROLL (continued)
SEA CHANGE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SPACE IN THE WRITING CENTER
Conner Morgan, Northern Virginia Community College
Writing Center theory focuses on the tutor/writer interaction, but what about the interaction the writer has with the writing
center space? Can something as intangible as atmosphere impact the efficacy of the writing center? This sessions will offer both
tutors and administrators a peer tutor’s perspective on how change in physical space can improve or detract from the tutoring
experience. Writing can be a nerve-wracking process for many students, and it is up to the Writing Center and its staff to provide an environment which will hopefully facilitate the writing process. Beyond training, attention can also be paid to the atmosphere that the center creates. During this presentation, I will provide attendees with ways that alterations in staff attitudes,
signage, and even center layout, tutorial space and furniture can reflect and facilitate the Writing Center’s goals. After a quick
review of some of pertinent literature and examples of how the idea of space can be applied. I will lead attendees in a handson activity applying the idea of space. We will sketch out physical approximations of our writing centers and experiment in new
and creative ways with furniture and layout. Tutors and staff will be encouraged to think in creative ways about changing the
atmosphere and space of their Writing Centers. In this way, our Writing Centers can be both a safe harbor for our students, and
a launching point for our own creativity.
SMOOTH SAILING: HARBORING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR TUTORS
Megan Breidenstein, Caitie O’Neil, and Andrew Wieczorek, University of Michigan—Flint
K.4
HOPKINS
IS RISK-TAKING GROWTH-MAKING OR A SURE WAY TO DROWN?
Monique Modeste, Victoria Centrella, Kerri Thomas, and Julie Rotz, SUNY College at Old Westbury
When the tutor is no longer "wet-behind-the-ears" the question remains: "How do we build upon what tutors already know?"
When experienced tutors follow simple routines their growth can stagnate. This workshop intends to foster the critical thinking
behind the "cost-benefit analysis" of whether or not to take risks. The authors of The Everyday Writing Center emphasized
“ritual not as mindless re-enactment, but as mindful engagement." Carefully assessed risk-taking can be growth-making.
We will have two boards in the front of the room, illustrating a safe harbor and an open sea. Each participant will be given a
small paper boat and placed into groups. They will discuss different scenarios and strategies we use to tackle different circumstances and decide whether each strategy is safe or a risk. The tools will be written on the boats and the boats will be placed on
the boards depending on whether it is safe or risky. This workshop will encourage tutors to venture out and be creative, using
musical and artistic expression in their sessions. We will end the presentation by discussing the groups’ findings, and exploring
the importance and dangers of stepping outside of one's comfort zone into the open sea.
K.3—K.4
Writing Centers provide essential safe places for tutors as well as students but the topic of providing a safe place for tutors is
not always advertised and is relatively unexamined area. Tutor comfort and safety should be the primary tool to create
a successful Writing Center. The tutors' actions, whether negative or positive, directly affect the students who visit the Center
and their experiences that they take with them. At the University of Michigan-Flint, our Writing Center provides a safe harbor
that is essential if tutors and students are to come to our Center. The Center provides tutors with a place to come throughout
the day, when working or not, where they can do homework, eat lunch, or just relax. Tutors are the ones who spend the most
time in the center and if they feel the water rough, then that will reflect to the students and their experience.
Saturday
K.5
JEFFERSON
8:30 am — 9:40 am
Ethical Issues in Tutoring &Writing/ Roundtable/ NCPTW
“THIS ISN’T WHAT I THINK; IT’S WHAT MY PROFESSOR WANTS”: HELPING STUDENTS NAVIGATE ACADEMIC WRITING
Harvey Kail, Sara Ettinger, Andrew Prindle, Billy Roy, and Mae Walters, University of Maine
Students often approach writing assignments with preconceived notions of what their professors think and how the assignment should be written. Students are often hesitant to explore ideas that do not fit with these preconceived notions. They feel
they must write for their professors rather than write to them. At the same time, tailoring a paper to its audience is part of
what makes for successful writing. How might tutors help student writers maintain authority over “their ideas” while at the
same time helping them pilot the shoal waters of academic writing? To begin we will ask participants to freewrite in response
to one of the following prompts:
 Tutors: describe your experience writing to the demands of the professor.
 Writing Center Directors: how, if at all, should writing centers encourage student writers to move beyond their assumptions about what will please the teacher?
The members of the roundtable will then present their understandings of how the relation “ship” between student writer and
professor sometimes sails off course, and how they think writing center tutors can work with students who feel alienated from
their own writing. We will then open the floor to discussion, beginning with the freewrite responses.
K.6
MCKELDON
K.5—K.7
A NICE COFFEE POT & A BOWL OF CHOCOLATE: DESIGNING THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR A WC
Paula Harrington, Jessica Acosta, Nguyen Doan, and Adan Hussain, Colby College
We’ve always be fond of magnetic poetry, dry-erase boards, and incorporating post-it notes, markers, and highlighters into a
session: really, we thought we were doing everything we could to cater to each tutee’s distinct learning style and needs. Then,
two years ago, we put out a bowl of chocolate. After a few months, word spread. Suddenly, students weren’t coming in just to
make an appointment or be tutored. They’d swing by to say hello and eat a piece of chocolate. This year, we splurged and
bought ourselves a really nice coffee pot, with admittedly selfish intentions for its use. Word spread again. Students who had
never been considered “regulars” were actually making excuses to swing by, chat with a tutor, ask some questions about their
writing, and grab a cup of coffee. Completely inadvertently, we had changed the entire tone of our center. Simply put, by
making a few small adjustments to make ourselves more comfortable, we ended up making our center a more comfortable
destination for the entire student body. There was no theory or grand plan: we just made a few simple changes. So, being
both writers and tutors ourselves, we want to take advantage of NCPTW 2010 to collaborate with others about what contributes to the positive and negative atmospheres of writing centers. We’ll start our session with a writing exercise, work in groups
to design “floor plans” of the perfect writing center atmosphere, and finish with a group discussion about the changes (both
large and small) that we can share to make each of our home writing centers more desirable destinations for all students.
K.7
MENCKEN
NAVIGATING THE UNIVERSITY: CREATING SAFE HARBORS OUTSIDE THE WRITING CENTER
Patrick Jackson, Sasha Graybosch, and Courtney Kelsch, Fashion Institute of Technology, SUNY
Michelle Eodice (2003) reminds us that, “…what we could be doing to insure visibility is what we do best, and what we do in a powerful collection of moments all the hours we are open: collaborate” (p. 116). Collaborating and forging a relationship with a n Exhibition Design professor required all parties involved to think outside disciplinary comfort zones. Consequently, opportunitie s to
help student writers and to create greater visibility for the Writing Studio emerged. The speakers on this panel will show ho w creating allies within the institution can invigorate learning and writing on campus. Speaker 1 will discuss physical space and th e trust
required when faculty and writing consultants work outside of their regular locations. Speaker 2 will discuss intellectual sp ace,
sharing how this faculty member was able to make connections between writing and his background in art and design. Speaker 3
will explain how collaborating with this faculty member has helped the Writing Studio establish institutional credibility, pr oviding
opportunities to form new relationships with others. In offering these perspectives, we hope to begin a conversation about th e
risks and rewards involved in developing relationships that influence learning, writing, teaching, and our presence on campus .
Saturday
K. 8
8:30 am — 9:40 am
E. A. POE
ILLUMINATING STUDENT POTENTIAL: SUPPORTING ONLINE LEARNERS THROUGH THE KAPLAN UNIVERSITY WRITING CENTER
Diane Martinez, Joni Boone, and Kurtis Clements, Kaplan University
More adult students are pursuing college degrees than at any other time in the history of higher education. For many adults,
returning to or attending college for the first time is a frightening experience. And along with the demands of school, adult students have to cope with pressing life responsibilities of work, family, and community. Consequently, many students turn to
online education as a way to counter the strain on their time. In response, Kaplan University houses a completely online writing
center that caters to its busy and sometimes hesitant adult learners. Writing, a subject that often brings up past fears and failures from high school, is one of the most difficult points of navigation for adult students. After being out of school and at sea for
years or even decades, the Kaplan University Writing Center (KUWC) shines as a beacon to help our students navigate the rocky
waters of composition and bring them ashore to safe harbors. This is facilitated by a number of innovative writing programs and
resources delivered completely online. Our proposed workshop is designed to interactively share our ground-breaking programs and address our successes and challenges of delivering writing center programs and resources solely online.
K. 9
PRATT A
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy, Specific Student or Tutor Populations / Panel/ IWCA
CIRCUMNAVIGATING THE GLOBE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTILINGUAL WRITING CENTER
Noreen Lape, Lucile Duperron, and Lisa Wolff, Dickinson College
K.10
PRATT B
Practice & Application, Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Workshop/ NCPTW
CLOSING THE CONTENT-RHETORIC GAP: WORKING ON UNDERDEVELOPED WRITING SKILLS WITH ADVANCED STUDENTS
Chelcie Rowell and Lindsay Dolan, Swarthmore College
While many tutoring guidebooks describe specific tutoring scenarios such as working with novice, advanced, or ESL writers, one
frequently occurring scenario ignored by this literature is working with a writer whose content knowledge exceeds his writing
proficiency. Two theoretical issues complicate this scenario: (1) the divide between the student's mastery of rhetorical form versus discipline-specific content and (2) the dynamic of expertise in the tutor-tutee relationship. This workshop will cultivate
awareness of an under-recognized population of writers by providing tutors with strategies for acknowledging the student's
mastery of content while helping him to articulate that content knowledge in a clear and coherent form. Given that tutor approaches to these writers frequently confuse them with basic writers, we will provide a laboratory for experimentation so that
tutors can test more creative approaches. After using videotaped writing conferences as a basis for discussion about the theoretical issues at play, we will draw on these very real examples to brainstorm practical approaches and then, for the majority of
the workshop, to test them in an interactive role-play environment. We hope workshop participants will benefit from the different sorts of tutoring practices used by their peers in relation to this specific dilemma.
K.8—K.10
As of Fall 2010, the Dickinson College Writing Center will become a Multilingual Writing Center, offering peer tutoring to wr iters
of English, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese. After offering a history of the evolution of the Multilingual Writing Center, Noreen Lape, Director of the Writing Program and the Writing Center, will explore the ways a Multilin gual
Writing Center accommodates and complicates current (American) writing center pedagogy. Lisa Wolff, an ELL specialist, will
focus on her work with Overseas Assistants (foreign exchange students) who, like ESL tutors, need to be aware of the cultural and
linguistic differences between them and their tutees. Lisa will examine the principles behind tutoring ESL writers that can provide
OSAs with the theoretical background and practical tools they need to tutor effectively. Focusing on her work training the F rench
writing tutors, Lucile Duperron, a French linguist, will share the techniques she imparts to tutors that promote the concurre nt
development of linguistic and writing skills. While our plan is to train all tutors in American writing center pedagogy, we are
mindful of how cross-cultural collaboration is potentially reciprocal -- that is, working with writing and writers from other cultures
promises to challenge and revise our shared assumptions and theories about tutoring practices and the development of writers.
Saturday
K.11
PRESTON
8:30 am — 9:40 am
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/Individual/ NCPTW
FROM PEER TUTOR TO WRITING INSTRUCTOR: TAKING A PROCESS-ORIENTED APPROACH WITH YOU
Brandon Alva, Salt Lake Community College
The audience for my presentation is peer tutors who are interested in becoming composition instructors. In addition to my own
experience as a peer tutor who is also a composition instructor, I will draw upon composition journals. Emphasis will be placed
on helping tutors to see that principles of a process-oriented approach to tutoring can be used effectively in teaching a class.
The application of these principles will be discussed as they apply to two different skill sets: (1) Successfully transitioning peer
tutoring skills to classroom instruction and (2) acquiring needed skills which are more likely foreign to peer tutors.
In transitioning peer tutoring skill to class room instruction we will look at meeting one-on-one with students. First, how oneon-one sessions have proven effective for instructors. Second, how the change in authority from peer tutor to grade-giving
instructor can affect a one-on-one session and how to encourage students to take ownership of their writing in spite of that
change. In building new skills we will look at course planning and how to avoid a lecture only approach by using methods such
as peer review, group discussion and peer instruction to make students active learners.
Research & Theory/ Individual/ NCPTW
WRITING APPREHENSION: CAN WRITING CENTER VISITS HELP AID THIS ACADEMIC SEASICKNESS?
K.11—K.12
Melissa Keith, Boise State University
In this session, participants will be offered the opportunity to measure their own level of academic seasickness by taking the
brief Writing Apprehension Test (the WAT—developed by Daly and Miller), and we will then compare those scores to that of a
highly apprehensive writer. To get a better understanding of how debilitating writing apprehension can be for some students,
we will begin by considering all the ways in which this kind of academic seasickness can affect a student’s travels through the
stormy seas of academic life. The remainder of this session will explore one researcher’s attempt at answering the question,
did visiting the Writing Center help ease students’ academic seasickness that is writing apprehension? We’ll dive into all parameters of the study, including: the methodology, participants, data, results, and implications. Furthermore, we will discuss
the measures taken—in response to this study—by one First-Year Writing Program to help students keep from capsizing. Finally, we will investigate the following questions: are writing centers safe harbors for apprehensive writers? Did navigating the
rough waters of required visits pay off? And, perhaps most importantly, did this researcher survive the shark-infested waters
of a quantitative research project?
K.12
SCHAEFER
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Individual/ NCPTW
NAVIGATING THE SCIENCES WITHOUT A COMPASS: GENERALIST TUTORS AND SPECIALIZED WRITING
Sarah Ganong, Dickinson College
Is there a point at which generalist peer writing tutors are no longer useful to students writing in specialized scientific genres?
Entering the debate about whether generalist or specialist tutors are more effective, I will gauge the attitudes of professors,
students, and tutors at Dickinson College towards generalist writing tutoring for science majors. I am interested in analyzing
whether or not these three groups value generalist writing tutors and in what ways their value judgments coincide and differ. I
will then use the results of my research to present several ways that the Writing Center can better serve aspiring science writers at Dickinson College. I will describe the information about science writing that tutors need to be taught in the training class,
and I will suggest improvements to the current system of recommending tutors to work in the Writing Center and matching
them up with tutees once employed there.
Saturday
K.12
8:30 am — 9:40 am
Practice & Application, he Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Individual/NCPTW
SAILING IN THE SCIENCES: THE TROUBLES TUTORS FACE WHEN SPEAKING TO STUDENTS FROM FOREIGN FIELDS
James Spears, University of Pittsburgh
If the writing center is an harbour, should not every ship be accommodated during stormy weather? As tutors, we come readily
equipped with tropes, terms, and techniques most useful when writing a paper; that is, most tutors are limited when it comes to
helping students who are familiar with a different kind of writing, namely in the physical sciences. How are tutors then to speak
to these individuals who possess a different understanding of how a paper is to be written? If tutors are to adapt to, accommodate, and assist the chemist or engineer should they not speak the same ‘language’? Cannot some effective way of communication be found? These are the questions my project seeks to answer; for if the writing center is to be used by all, to all it should
be most helpful. Through experience and examination, discussions with focus groups in the engineering school here at the university, and use of numerous sources which explore writing across the curriculum programs, I look to discover ways in which
tutors can be of an even greater assistance in the writing center, no longer limited to working within such narrow boundaries.
Research &Theory/ Panels/NCPTW
NAVIGATING THE FLUID BORDER BETWEEN SPECIALIST AND GENERALIST IN CURRICULUM-BASED TUTORING
Aleksandra Olszewski, Emily Hall, and Rachel Witt, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Speaker 1 will show how tutors working in an advanced biology research lab depend on content knowledge in conferences, yet,
because they lack study-specific knowledge possessed by the tutees, these students avoid many challenges encountered by specialist tutors. Speaker 2 will examine the ways in which generalist Writing Fellows become “mini-specialists” by responding to a
set of papers all addressing the same prompt, meeting with the course professor, and engaging in cross-disciplinary conversations with student writers. Speaker 3 will discuss how she uses specific assignments and in-class exercises to train her tutors to
avoid the easy comfort of knowledge or the unfamiliarity of a new disciplinary space. Ultimately, together with our audience,
we hope to de-familiarize the terms “specialist” and “generalist” and to reach new understandings of how both positions can
serve us as tutors.
K.13
WASHINGTON
The Writing Center and the Community/Individual/ NCPTW
FROM PLANET EARTH TO TUTOR TERRA: USING VIDEO PARODIES TO HELP STUDENTS NAVIGATE WRITING CENTER TERRAIN
Melody Pritchard, Alexis Johnson, Joshua Knight, Dorothy Matthews, and Jessica Upchurch; Francis Marion University
Navigating the writing center for the first time can be a daunting task for any new student. At our facility, we often encounter
new students who are unsure of what to expect when it comes to tutorials. As tutors, it is our responsibility to provide tutees
with information on how they can best prepare themselves for their first visit.
K.12—K.13
This panel explores how the dichotomy of “specialist” and “generalist” is complicated in curriculum-based tutoring. Experiences
in high level courses and the Writing Fellows program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison reveal the potential for these
strategies to inform one another within a single tutoring experience. Drawing on their original research, two undergraduate
Writing Fellows and the Program director will show how tutors continually navigate the fluid border between specialist and
generalist.
Saturday
L.1
9:50 am — 11:00 am
ADAMS
ESL WRITERS FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF POWER AND NEW MEDIA
Eric Dragseth, Cynthia E. Sampson, and Marnie K. Heggie, University of Missouri at Columbia
Our presentations question the “welcome” that writing centers give ESL students both in the center and through new media outl ets.
In this roundtable, we discuss work done in new media by writing centers and we address the power structure of writing center s.
Speaker 1, a peer tutor and undergraduate English major, discusses MU-Columbia Writing Center's production of short skits and
the difficulties in forming a meaningful message for non-native students. Speaker 1 evaluates the growing number of published
writing center skits and raise questions about these forays into new media for ESL students. Speaker 2, consultant and graduate
MA/PhD student in Composition and Rhetoric, raises questions about the intricacies of power structures in the writing center.
Speaker 2 questions the status of ESL writers and how much writing centers allow for spaces of empowerment for ESL/ELL students. Speaker 3, a graduate student clinician and Speech-Language Pathology student, suggests models of effective tutoring
that work beyond the typical one-with-one non-interventionist approaches to tutoring. Speaker 3 opens a discussion on what
tutoring formats best serve ESL students and best welcomes writers to the university community.
L.2
CALHOUN
Diversity/ Workshop/ NCPTW
DIVERSITY AND THE WRITING CONSULTANT: AWARENESS, ACCEPTANCE, AND CELEBRATION
L.1—L.3
Emily Kroska, Rachel McMurray, Kara Bollinger, University of Kansas
After recently producing a diversity statement at the KU Writing Center, a new task arises—putting these words into action. The
goal of this workshop is to assist staff members in better understanding how to celebrate diversity in consulting sessions,
amongst consultants, and outside of the writing center. The celebration of diversity includes awareness and appreciation of the
differences that allow for individuality. Promoting diversity amongst consultants will provide a “safe harbor” for students who
come to the Writing Center from all backgrounds and experiences. By providing tutors with a variety of activities in this workshop, we will encourage them to frame diversity in innovative ways. This includes activities that will highlight diversity of experience, writing style, interest, along with more traditionally researched notions of diversity, like race, gender, and sexuality. We
will exercise self- and group- reflection after each activity in order to emphasize the importance of collaboration as a means of
developing ideas about diversity, much like we develop our ideas about writing. These activities can then be recycled at individual Writing Centers and used among staff members to cultivate diversity in institutions across the country.
L.3
CARROLL
The Writing Center and the Community, Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Panel/ NCPTW
MAKING THE LEAP: THE ROLE OF THE WRITING CENTER IN TRANSITIONING FROM HIGH SCHOOL TO COLLEGE WRITING
Molly Scanlon, Diana George, Orlando Dos Reis, Erika Duerksen, and Jennifer Lawrence, Virginia Tech University
Using their collective experience in a range of unique roles—undergraduate peer coach, high school writing center intern, graduate peer coach/freshman composition instructor, and assistant director of the writing center (as chair and moderator) —this
panel provides a perspective on the role of the writing center as a compass to assist first-year students in negotiating the diversified writing tasks asked of them at the college level. Speaker one will draw from his experiences at a local high school to reflect
upon the context shift that students must negotiate in order to prepare for college writing. Speaker two will address common
writing myths that often serve as stumbling blocks during the high school/college shift, and how writing centers help dispel
qualms and aid students through the collegiate writing transition. Speaker three will discuss the benefits of both faculty and
students of injecting writing center culture (process-focused instruction and nondirective coaching methods) into the public
school system. Our panel will address the challenges in partnering with a high school in creating a writing center and the benefits that can be gained from both sides of this partnership.
Saturday
L.3
9:50 am — 11:00 am
CARROLL (continued)
VISUAL AIDS AS SAFE ANCHORS FOR HIGH SCHOOL WRITERS
Amanda DeJessa, Lynchburg College
This presentation will be directed towards a high school classroom. Some students come to college under prepared for academic writing, so high school English teachers need to address this problem. Most high schools do not have a writing center,
and this presentation will use materials that are commonly found in a writing center to help teach composition. The materials
used will focus mainly on the “big picture” rather than technical issues in an essay. I have created handouts that will help students learn how to structure an essay, how to write a thesis, and how to support that thesis. After discussing the handouts,
the participants will discuss ways to adapt the classroom handouts to the individualized tutoring situation in the writing center.
L.4
HOPKINS
Ethical Issues in Tutoring & Writing/ Panel/ NCPTW
THE WRITING CENTER-FACULTY RELATIONSHIP: WHO IS THE HARBOR MASTER?
Earl Ingram, Melina Baer, Elda Hadzic, and Markedus Marshall, Jackson State Community College
L.5
JEFFERSON
Assessment & Evaluation/ Panel/ NCPTW
EMBEDDING WRITING CENTER TUTORS AS A RESOURCE IN FYE COURSES: PILOT PROGRAM FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Stephanie Motz, Sue Beebe, Aaron Deutsch, Nancy Wilson, Texas State University
Of the challenges present in teaching English composition, expectation is monumental. In order to expect high-quality work
from students and fortify their skill set for future courses while also providing means to meet these expectations, the students
must have a network of support and resources. The writing center and its mission statement of non-evaluative, peer-to-peer
tutoring, seems like the perfect ally to counteract this difficulty. Over the course of one semester, one tutor was embedded
into the framework of two FYE courses. The tutor taught students how read and analyze poetry as well as peer-edit work,
posted relevant writing and analytical strategies on the course website, and maintained the role of peer, thereby negating any
pressure the students felt in regards to the evaluation of their work. The teacher actively reinforced the value of the embedded tutor by actively utilizing the writing center as a satellite learning venue, and encouraging students to seek out resources
only available from the writing center.
This panel will discuss the experiment and our findings from the perspective of the embedded tutor who worked in two
courses, the perspective of the teacher who utilized the tutor in both online and in-class; and the perspectives of the writing
center director and the director of lower-division studies in English who oversaw the pilot project.
L.3—L.5
Van Gogh wrote that art is powerful enough to "carr[y] a man to harbor, though he himself must do his bit too." The notion
that we must each bring ourselves to our destinations under our own "steam" applies not only to the Writing Center's clients
and tutors but also to faculty whose students use the Center. At Jackson State Community College, the three-year-old Writing
Center struggles with finding our place within the existing college community. What responsibility do faculty, tutors, and clients each have to find our own way to the safe harbor? Problems and possible solutions are discussed from various perspectives: Earl Ingram explores the problems faced by tutors and tutees when professors consistently require students to use the
WC and write convoluted, confusing assignments or comments. Markedus Marshall discusses the problem of authority from
his vantage points as a tutor and an instructor. Elda Hadzic considers differences between expectations and outcomes for students under various tutoring models via her experience as a client and tutor in several writing centers. Melina Baer explains
how WC administrators can help all parties navigate the rough waters between faculty expectations, communication, and student needs. This panel discussion covers issues of tutor training, outreach and faculty support, and tutor ethics and seeks.
Saturday
L.6
9:50 am — 11:00 am
MCKELDON
NAVIGATING YOUR COURSE: THE BEGINNING STAGES OF THE WRITING PROCESS
Meredith Shinners and Elizabeth Beresford, Penn State University
Beginning a paper is hands down the most difficult part of the writing process. It is not uncommon for students of every skill
level to struggle for hours in determining exactly the right string of words for the opening sentence. Most of this struggle can
be rooted back to an unclear idea about what the paper will discuss, but once the paper’s course is navigated, writing is all
smooth sailing. As tutors in our university’s Writing Center, we have discovered first hand that building a strong base for a
written work enhances the efficiency of the overall writing process as well as the quality of the final draft. We have also found
that leading tutorials without the guidance provided by an already formulated draft is especially difficult. This dual presentation seeks to explore the complexities facing a tutor and tutee at the beginning of the writing process. Our presentation will
improve the tutor’s ability to guide the tutee to a solid foundation for the developing paper. By strengthening the brainstorming, outlining, and thesis formulating portions of a tutorial, members of the writing center community will be better able to
address one of the most difficult aspects of the writing process.
L.7
E. A. POE
Practice & Application and Specific Student or Tutor Populations/ Roundtable/ IWCA
LOST AT SEA: NAVIGATING GRADUATE STUDENT WRITING
L.6—L.8
Lauren Curtright, Jasmine Kar Tang, and Kristen Nichols-Besel, University of Minnesota
What does a writing center mean to graduate students? This session responds to this question by drawing from our experiences providing, and searching for, writing instruction on an institutional level and discovering graduate writers’ needs. The
panelists include graduate and undergraduate writing consultants from various disciplines.
Lauren Curtright will discuss how the dissertating support she has received and provided in face-to-face and online sessions
has shaped her understanding of graduate writers’ needs. Kristen Nichols-Besel, drawing from her background in education,
will discuss implications of how her teaching of graduate students in the classroom influences her consulting with graduate
students. Jasmine Kar Tang will consider how a writing center can support graduate student writers not only through consultations but also by helping them develop tools and innovative ways to work on their writing outside of a writing center.
L.8
PRATT A
BIG APPLES FOR MAPLE SYRUP: RESULTS OF A TUTOR SWAP
Brian Fallon and Daniel Phillips, Fashion Institute of Technology, SUNY; Sam Wakefield, University of Vermont
In the spring semester of 2010, peer tutors from University of Vermont and the Fashion Institute of Technology participated in
a tutor swap during their respective spring breaks. The speakers on this panel will talk about the lessons learned leaving their
own writing centers and finding themselves in new surroundings with new tutors and different approaches to writing center
work. Beyond the obvious issues of typical practices in the writing center, these tutors considered how each writing center is
situated on campus, and how the academic and local communities in which they operate influence these centers. In addition
to having a great time in the host towns, the peer tutors on this panel took a great deal from each other and from spending
time away from their own college. Consequently, the panelist would like to begin a discussion about how exchange programs
such as this build on and continue the NCPTW experience, and would like to provide a model for thinking about our writing
centers as interconnected harbors where tutors have opportunities to leave port and gain worthwhile practices by spending
time with tutors outside of their own learning communities.
Saturday
L.9
9:50 am — 11:00 am
PRATT B
Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy, Research & Theory, Practice & Application/ Workshop/NCPTW
GETTING LOST: CONSULTING AS INQUIRY
Frankie Condon, University of Nebraska—Lincoln; Elizabeth Boquet, Fairfield University; Meg Carroll, Rhode Island College;
Michele Eodice, University of Oklahoma; Anne Ellen Geller, St. John’s University; Moira Ozias, University of Kansas
"How will you go about finding the thing, the nature of which is totally unknown to you?” (Solnit 115)
Rebecca Solnit's book, A Field Guide to Getting Lost, is composed of a series of autobiographical essays that, singly and collectively, invite readers to experiment with getting lost. Lostness, suggests Solnit, provokes a sense of presence and a practice of
mindfulness that familiarity agitates against. In this workshop, we invite and join with consultants who accept the invitation to
get lost in their work: to allow themselves to see the familiar -- the everyday -- as strange and to discover the ways in which
being lost might help us conceive of consulting as inquiry. Employing a variety of hands-on activities, many of which are described in The Everyday Writing Center: A Community of Practice, in combination with writing and talking, we invite consultants
to "leave the door open to the unknown...where the most important things come from, where you yourself came from, and
where you will go." (4)
L.10
PRESTON
WRITERS AS RIGS:
HOW TO TUTOR CRUISERS, KAYAKS, AND CUTTERS, AND WHEN TO SEND IN THE SUBMARINES AND LIFEBOATS
Patricia Navarra, Laura LaVocca, Jen Marx, Matthew Monk, and Carole Clark Papper, Hofstra University
Our panel will consider diversity in the Writing Center and its implications for the University: we are at the ready to work with
ways of knowing and divergent thinking. We work with rowboats and whaleboats and skiffs and any vessel that comes to our
harbor. We think. We model. We collaborate and then we set sail. Each member will present research about their chosen
population(s), and, at the end of the session, ask some brave participants to join in two or three role-plays between client and
consultant. (Each will be assigned a pre-written task.) The floor will then be open for group discussion.
L.11
SCHAEFER
Diversity, Tutor & Staff Training and Pedagogy/ Panel/ NCPTW
ROUGH SEAS AND SAFE HARBOR: TRANSITION AND TRAINING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF SECOND-LANGUAGE WRITERS
Ted Roggenbuck, Amanda Charles, Molly Phelan, and Jessica Weber, Bloomsburg University
Many writing centers face new waves of tutors every semester and must adapt to change as they strive to improve as valuable
resources for writers. With three different directors in the last three years and three relocations in the last year, our writing
center has experienced a great deal of transition. In this panel, four undergraduate writing consultants will discuss their experiences working in a center in transition. Specifically, this year, for the first time, we have read, written responses to, and met to
discuss writing center theory and practice. In the spring of 2010, we focused particularly on the needs of International and
other students writing in a second language. Our panel will present a discussion of the impact of our new training program on
our sessions and individual philosophies. We will especially focus on our efforts to help second-language writers, including a
discussion of the role of the writing center as welcome harbor for international students navigating new, foreign seas.
L.9—L.11
Consulting diverse student populations (adults, second-language writers, grad students, students with disabilities, athletes,
those in disciplines outside our expertise, and, in the case of our undergraduate tutors , peer-to-peer consulting) requires a certain willingness of the consultant to think in new paradigms. We harbormasters must be willing to learn how a catamaran or
schooner navigate, and determine whether we should send a tugboat (to push them along) or a dinghy (to bring them inland,
perhaps to a more suitable vessel) or merely adjust the sails. Our panel will present the challenges inherent in working with
each population, with a particular emphasis on primary research.
Saturday
L.12
WASHINGTON
9:50 am — 11:00 am
SHIFTING SEAS: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PEER AND PROFESSIONAL TUTORS
Martin Steger, Karen McDonnell, and Andrea Smith, James Madison University
Our university uses a tutoring class to introduce prospective peer tutors to the ideas, techniques and questions of the field, as
well as the people who work in our writing center. By the time new peer tutors complete their training, they have already come
in contact with many of the center’s professional consultants, all of whom double as writing professors. These encounters lead
to shifting relationships and discourse. What happens when your mentor becomes a colleague, or your boss becomes your
teacher? How do friendships between students and faculty affect working and educational exchanges? How much does dialogue “de-formalize,” or vice versa? This setup—students as colleagues, professors as friends—can create awkwardness and/or
empowerment. For instance, a peer tutor may feel pressured to impress a professor/colleague in a classroom setting, while that
same professor might look to the tutor for more input than normal during a class discussion.
L.12
In this presentation, peer tutors and professional consultants will provide viewpoints from both sides of the aforementioned
shifts through the lens of our writing center.
Saturday
M.1
11:10 am — 12:20 pm
CALHOUN
Practice & Application/ Roundtable/ NCPTW
WHEN GOOD TUTORS GO BAD
Nathalie Singh-Corcoran, Caitlin Fehrs, Allison Hitt, James Holsinger, Benjamin Myers, and Stephani Smith,
West Virginia University; Mary Inks, Pennsylvania State University, Fayette
The sea of writing center literature is filled with best practices for tutoring. Texts such as Ryan and Zimmerelli's The Bedford
Guide for Writing Tutors and Soven's What the Writing Tutor Needs to Know recommend that tutors use read aloud protocols, employ a passive pen (i.e. no writing on a student's paper), and focus on HOCs before LOCs. In most staff development
programs, tutors learn about these best practices and liberally employ them when they work with students. However, there
have been instances in our own writing center when each of us has gone rogue, when we have veered from the path of good
tutoring and been bad. We have on occasion been directive and written on student drafts; we have read papers silently; we
have had tutoring sessions where we have only focused on LOC's, and these sessions have yielded surprising results. Our
roundtable explores the larger questions: Why do good tutors go bad? What happens in a session when we shirk our best
practices? What are the implications? During our roundtable, we will begin with a brief writing prompt asking our participa nts
to share a situation in which they have employed a bad writing tutor practice. We will then ask all participants to share th eir
writing and move into real-life scenarios and a larger discussion that will yield answers to our questions. We are hopeful that
we can collaboratively construct material/information that will expand our collective understanding of writing center praxis.
M.1—M.3
M.2
CARROLL
Practice & Application/ Workshop /NCPTW
TESTING THE WATER IN A SAFE HARBOR:
HELPING STUDENTS BUILD MORE EFFECTIVE PERSONAL WRITING PROCESSES IN THE WRITING CENTER
Lacey Wulf, Hannah Hardin, Jackie Johnson, and Marissa Soshi, Texas A&M University
Outline. Draft, Revise. Proofread. It's the default writing process. Yet, we, as writing tutors, notice that we don't follow the
step-by-step writing process we were taught in grade school. We have learned to make the writing process our own: we
shorten, combine, or even seem to skip some of the steps within the standard writing process and still produce impressive
writing. How can we share our writing secrets with our students? Acknowledging, examining, and appreciating our own
learning and writing styles will help us to better meet the diverse needs of our students. Presenters seek to understand other
writers' processes and encourage experimentation. Presenters will conduct discussions about different writing processes,
issues with these different writing styles, and practical methods of addressing these issues. Participants will fill out a survey
to discover their writing processes, following which there will there will be a discussion about techniques that could help writers preserve the positive and effective aspects of their process and refine other elements to be more efficient and/or effect ive.
M.3
HOPKINS
NAVIGATING IN INTERDISCIPLINARY TERRITORY: CHALLENGING TUTORING ORTHODOXY
Margaret Weaver, Missouri State University; Eric Sentell, Northern Virginia Community College;
Sarah Viehmann, Anoka-Ramsey Community College
While writing centers remain institution-specific, an established “tutoring orthodoxy” is kept alive through mantras like
“maintain peerness,” “remain objective toward content,” and “focus on error patterns.” Prompted by interdisciplinary research, this panel questions such mantras. Borrowing from practitioners of erotic Domination/submission, Panelist #1 argues
that hierarchy and inequality—rather than “peerness”—can form the basis for productive, satisfying relationships. Most writing center literature has also advocated that tutors should not debate/react to content, even if it is, as Pemberton says,
“patently offensive.” Based on recent developments in neuropsychology, Panelist #2 will argue that tutors should react because it allows a student to observe emotional reactions to his/her paper, activating mirror neurons that trigger the same
emotion. This understanding could potentially prompt revision. Panelist #3 will discuss consciousness research on
“inattentional blindness,” the failure of observation when attention is focused elsewhere, as observed by Simon and Chablis,
and its implications for the mantra “focus on error patterns.” In summary, the panel will navigate historically strong currents
with interdisciplinary oars, concluding with an open forum: Might navigating interdisciplinary territory prompt a paradigm
shift for writing centers? Can the currents of tutoring orthodoxy be redirected?
Saturday
M.4
11:10 am — 12:20 pm
JEFFERSON
Practice & Application/ Roundtable/NCPTW
LEAVING PORT: EMBARKING ON A WRITING FELLOWS PROGRAM
Melissa Nicolas, Kimberly Ammiano, Samantha Bredahl, Ashley Eslinger, Ryan Elwood, Me Shach Hopkins,
Theepica Jeyaizajah, and Maya Sanyal, Drew University
As a small liberal arts college, our curriculum has always been writing-intensive, but until this year, we have not had a writing
fellows program to support the writing that students do across the curriculum. Being the first group of trained writing fellows
on our campus, we will discuss—in this roundtable presentation--both the logistics of starting such a program as well as the
challenges and rewards we are facing as we launch this new initiative. From negotiating different disciplinary expectations for
writing, to facilitating productive relationships with professors, to earning the respect of our peers, we will share our experiences in an effort to encourage discussion and share ideas with other undergraduate writing fellows.
M.5
MCKELDON
Diversity/ Panel/ NCPTW
“BECAUSE I’VE BEEN THERE, TOO:”
EFFECTIVE PRACTICES AND THEORIES OF L 1.5 AND L2 WRITING CONSULTANTS ON A DIVERSE CAMPUS
Paula Gillespie, Miguel Ovalles, Dariel Suarez, and Patricia Warman, Florida International University
MULTILINGUAL TUTORS AND THE ESL STUDENT
Brian Janiczek, Bloomsburg University
This presentation will focus on a methodological approach taken by multilingual tutors when working with ESL students, as well
as how to emulate such an approach. As a result of their linguistic background, multilingual tutors are better equipped to work
with ESL students in developing writing proficiency. To the ESL student, writing in English not only presents a grammatical obstacle, but it also forces them to organize their thoughts in a different manner, one which may not feel natural. Multilingual
tutors can provide ESL students with an experienced bridge for this new method of writing. The linguistic familiarity of the multilingual tutor can be emulated through a series of training sessions. These sessions would introduce tutors to the fundamental
differences in sentence structure and organization in several different languages. As tutors become more comfortable with the
differences between English and other languages, they will be better able to work with ESL students in their transition from
their native language to English.
M.6
MENCKEN
IMPROVISATION AND PERFORMANCE IN TUTORING: TAKING RISKS AND SETTING SAIL
Gannon Reedy and Elspeth Ryan, Columbia College Chicago
This session brings into play the elements of improvisation and performance as they apply to work as peer tutors. The attende es
will be encouraged to participate in activities that will move tutor training from the safe harbor of traditional praxis to t he open
seas of discovery. The activities include various styles of improvisation and use performance to highlight various aspects of tutoring.
M.4—M. 6
L1.5 and L2 writers are often seen as issues or problems in writing centers where L1 writers and L1 tutors are the norm. But
what about those centers where L1.5 and L2 students predominate as writers and consultants? This session will explore the use
of a diverse tutoring staff in a diverse urban public four-year-plus university in Miami. The session chair will introduce some
data on effectiveness of L2 and L1.5 writing consultants, based in part on student satisfaction surveys that users fill out after
every session. The graduate consultant will conduct interviews with writing center users, students from L1, L1.5, and L2 groups,
and she will report on their experiences with ESL and L1.5 consultants. The two consultants will describe their processes of using their own experiences as L2 English learners to help L1 and L2 writers and relate their experiences to theories they have
investigated. The session will theorize and analyze what elements of these consultations might be adaptable for L1 tutors. Our
early assessment indicates that our students are very comfortable working with L2 consultants, even when their spoken English
might be accented or even nonstandard, and that they find the sessions extremely valuable.
Saturday
11:10 am — 12:20 pm
M.7 E. A. POE
DOCKING YOUR BOAT: TUTORS FIND SAFE PASSAGE THROUGH THE SHOALS OF THE JOB MARKET
Deborah Murray, Molly Sanders, Kelsey Hixson-Bowles, Shannon Wilson, and Jessica Reyes, Kansas State University
The 2008 collection, Creative Approaches to Writing Center Work (edited by Dvorak and Bruce), considers how play and creativity
relate to life in the Writing Center, as well as the wider community. The arguments in favor of creativity have a continued relevance
for tutors after college (and perhaps post-tutoring, as seen in the PWTARP). While some tutors will remain affiliated with the academy, most of them will move on to other professions; therefore, tutor development should help tutors envision life beyond their
academic careers. Creativity and flexibility, core aspects of successful tutoring, have also been pointed to as key to professional success in Daniel Pink's 2005 book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. Facilitated by the director and her
tutors, this workshop will guide tutors in the formation of a 6-word tutoring philosophy, a list of abilities/skills developed by tutoring,
as well as brief anecdotes to demonstrate how tutoring experience is relevant to any profession, even those not specifically related
to education. In addition to giving participants some take-away strategies for applying one's work as a tutor to future endeavors,
this workshop will also enrich awareness of how our tutoring philosophies affect our work with writers.
M.8 PRATT A
CHARTING THE UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION IN THE WRITING CENTER
Meghan Zingales, University of Michigan
While recent technological advances in the Sweetland Peer Tutoring Center allow even the busiest students on campus to get th e
M.7—M.9
help they seek, these additions may be sacrificing the long-term objective of making better writers in order to satisfy students’
short-term preference for convenience. Our center has welcomed the use of laptops in face-to-face sessions, has offered an online
writing lab where students can submit their papers electronically and receive written feedback, and most recently has launche d
“SyncOwl.” With a new decade underway, these additions to the writing center seem critical to the technologically-wired world;
however, the writing center’s traditional practices might be too soon forgotten. In traditional face-to-face sessions, both students
and tutors can easily interact and collaborate. As tutoring moves away from this practice, however, tutors may feel detached from
students and retreat into the safe harbor of simply editing. In our presentation, we will explore both the positives and neg atives of
implementing technology with an interactive demonstration of OWL and SyncOwl. This will facilitate our discussion on whether the
goal of reaching many students overpowers the goal of effectively helping each individual student.
“I DON’T USE THE WRITING PROCESS”: INSPIRATION 8 NAVIGATES THE OPEN SEAS OF THE RECURSIVE WRITING PROCESS
Alex Rosales and Laura Crook, Columbia College Chicago
When Columbia College Chicago's Writing Center moved into the Learning Studio space, each tutorial pod was supplied with Insp iration 8, a visual tool that help students brainstorm, plan, and draft using a graphic organizer and emphasizing the recursiv e process of writing. Since this program was new to the Learning Studio, we volunteered to learn and then teach our fellow tutors h ow to
use Inspiration 8 in writing tutorials. During this session, we plan to discuss the pros and cons of using this software to h elp students move from the safe harbors of their own writing processes to the open seas of the recursive writing process as well as the
receptiveness of tutors using this as a paddle to guide.
M.9 PRATT B
LEAVING THE SHALLOWS: HELPING WRITERS MOVE TOWARD DEEPER ANALYSIS
Practice & Application/ Panel/ NCPTW
Allison Eck, Courtney Flint, Maeve Gately, Sharon Williams, and Olivia Wolfgang-Smith, Hamilton College
As writing tutors, we often encounter drafts that are inadequate responses to assignments. In some cases, writers compose
drafts that fail to move beyond description and summary. In other cases, writers write for several pages before reaching an appropriate response to the question. Or, writers may have an argument, but the argument is too simple and fails to develop. In
this presentation, we will discuss and demonstrate strategies that tutors can use to help writers articulate their best ideas and to
spark deeper analytical thinking. These strategies include the tutor serving as a sounding board for the writer; discussion of alternative organizational structures that promote analysis over summary; and ways to deepen the writer’s thesis and argument. Audience members will be invited to share their ideas about helping writers move toward deeper analysis.
Saturday
M.10 PRESTON
11:10 am — 12:20 pm
SAILING SHIPS AND SEALING WAX: THE SOCIAL (DE)CONSTRUCTION OF PEER TUTORING IN MARKETING MATERIALS,
PROFESSOR REPORT FORMS, AND WRITING ASSOCIATES
Noreen Lape, Taylor Kobran, Christopher Striker, and Amanda Jo Wildey, Dickinson College
How can the writing center better define its relationship to the college community through the image it projects in its marketing materials? Focusing on the Dickinson College writing center, A.J. Wildey will show how we unwittingly send students and
professors mixed messages about the true focus of sessions. She will propose a plan to revise the media describing writing
center sessions, specifically the assistance students can expect at each stage of the writing process. What should be the relationship between writing center tutors and professors? At Dickinson, tutors currently send narrative reports of the tutoring
session to each writer’s professor. By tracking how several professors use these forms, Taylor Kobran will address the kinds of
relationships the forms create between students, professors, and the writing center. Do these forms have benefits, or have
they outlasted their value? In classroom-based tutoring, how does the authority the professor confers on the Writing Associate shape the relationship with students and influence their academic success? Using a case study approach, Chris will analyze the kinds of authority a professor bestowed on a Writing Associate at various points in a course. He will then show how
the fellow’s interactions with students helped or hindered their ability to learn academic discourse.
M.11 SCHAEFER
The Writing Center within the University/Institution/ Panel/ NCPTW
BUILDING BRIDGES: THREE PERSPECTIVES ON AVOIDING TROUBLED WATER
Elizabeth I. Williams, Kimberly Peek, and Savannah Nulton, Kansas State University
M.12 WASHINGTON
HELPING WRITERS WITH THESES AND LONGER TEXTS: WHY AND HOW
Daniel Kenzie and Mary McCall, Purdue University
Longer writing projects such as undergraduate theses, capstone projects, graduate theses and dissertations pose unique challenges for peer tutors and their supervisors. Because of the length and complexity of these documents, writers’ needs in regard to their texts, time management, and organization frequently differ from those with shorter papers. Tutors also face special limitations and opportunities—in both ability and authority—when working with more advanced writers, particularly in
unfamiliar disciplines. The nature of multiple appointments—a common practice with longer projects—can affect the content
of tutorials and the tutor’s role. Furthermore, as tutors help writers work within a new and complex genre, both parties must
grapple with additional genres, such as literature reviews and funding proposals. Through a 75-minute workshop, our four presenters, who together represent two writing centers, will explore how tutors can navigate this terrain. We will share strategies
we have successfully employed in our writing centers, facilitate an interactive activity in which participants will respond to
sample texts and scenarios, invite discussion on how peer tutors can best help writers of longer projects and how administrators can prepare them to do so, and provide a bibliography of useful resources.
M.10—M.12
Simon and Garfunkel’s, “Bridge Over Troubled Water,” came to represent unity and support. The lyrics remain timeless and
may provide a way to think about writing center practice. Like water, the difficulties students face with writing are fluid and
difficult to define or contain. Likewise, the waves of administrative demands and academic misunderstanding of writing center
work that threaten to drown us are unpredictable and unavoidable. Nevertheless, instead of attempting to locate problems
with a particular group, we should build bridges over troubled waters, ignoring the water and focusing on transcending trouble. Just as Michelle Eodice says in “Breathing Lessons”, we “would never presume to teach you to breathe” but our distinct
roles of graduate student tutor, first year seminar liaison, and undergraduate writing center intern have informed our “bridge
building” practices and, as a panel, we will explore the following questions: 1) How do we avoid our tendency to “diagnose”
problems in writers or in the academy and focus on building bridges?; 2) How can we avoid a diagnosis model and still achieve
our goals? We will present explorations from our three different viewpoints and allow for fifteen minutes of discussion and
questions at the end of our presentation.
Saturday
LUNCH & KEYNOTE
12:30 PM—2:00 PM
LUNCH
12:45 PM
NCPTW WELCOME
12:30 am —2:00 pm
INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM
Harvey Kail
NCPTW TRAVEL AWARDS
Sam Van Horne and Christopher Ervin
NCPTW MAXWELL AWARD
Leigh Ryan
IWCA OUTSTANDING BOOK/MAJOR WORK AWARD
Kevin Dvorak
1:10 PM
KEYNOTE
INTRODUCTION
Dominic Delli Carpini
“REFLECTIONS ON CONTEMPORARY CURRENTS IN WRITING CENTER WORK”
Andrea Lunsford
Andrea A. Lunsford, PhD, is the Louise Hewlett Nixon
Professor of English and Faculty Director of the Program
in Writing and Rhetoric at Stanford University. She has
designed and taught undergraduate and graduate
courses in writing history and theory, rhetoric, literacy
studies, and women’s writing and is the editor, author or
co-author of seventeen books, including The Everyday
Writer; Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse; Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on
Collaborative Writing; Reclaiming Rhetorica; Everything’s
an Argument; Writing Matters: Rhetoric in Private and
Public Lives; and The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies. She is currently at work on a collection of essays on
collaboration and audience (with her friend and coauthor Lisa Ede) and on The Norton Anthology of Rhetoric and Writing.
NCPTW TRAVEL GRANTS
Each year, the National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing awards several travel grants to individuals or groups of undergraduate or graduate peer tutors who have been accepted for a presentation, poster, or panel discussion at its conference.
Listed below are the 2010 recipients.
University of Maine
Andrew Prindle
Mae Walters
Billy Roy
Sara Ettinger
Purdue University
Daniel Kenzie
Mary McCall
Western Michigan University
Carly Fricano
Fairfield University
Eric Clayton
Mary K. Merz
Kathryn Reilly
A. MacDonald
University of Minnesota
Kristen Nichols-Besel
Jasmine Kar Tang
San Francisco State University
Al Harahap
University of Kansas
Emily Kroska
Rachel MacMurray
Kara Bollinger
University of Nebraska
Seth Trenchard
University of Louisville
Lauren Hall
Amanda Phillips
University of Nebraska
Dae-Joong Kim
Muhlenberg College
Molly Harper
Emily Stockton-Brown
David Cooper
Appalachian State University
Tara Moore
Kansas State University
Kelsey Hixson-Bowles
Jessica Reyes
Molly Sanders
Shannon Wilson
Saturday
S.2
SCHOLAR-TO-SCHOLAR
2:10 pm — 3:10 pm
INTERNATIONAL E
“READ WRITE RETURNING”: WHO COMES BACK TO THE WRITING CENTER?
David Cooper, Molly Harper, Emily Stockton-Brown
USING YOGIC PRINCIPLES TO CULTIVATE A WRITING CENTER PEDAGOGY OF HAPPINESS
Emily Clay, Denise Dailey, Catherine DeLazzero, Tazmin Uddin
THE EFFECTS OF WORKING AS A PEER TUTOR ON COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS
Brandon Alva
NAVIGATING TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION IN WRITING CENTERS
Kim Abels, Dennis Bennett, Tammy Conrad-Salvo, Matthew Gilchrist, Shareen Grogan, Steve Kaminczak
WHEN NOW JUST WON’T DO: ENCOURAGING STUDENTS TO WRITE THROUGH THE USE OF WRITING CENTERS
Alexandra Guerriero
CAN VIRTUAL SPACES BE "SAFE" HARBORS? USING AN AVATAR TO CHART NEW TERRITORIES FOR ONLINE COMMUNITIES
Katie Hart, Ellen Kirby, Britney Menconi
FROM HARBOR TO HARBOR: MAPPING THE ROUTE FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNITIES OF WRITING CENTER PRACTICE
Elaine Hays
CHARTING THE CURRENTS: CONSIDERING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES AND THE WRITING PROCESS
Ann Hoelscher
WRITING CENTERS IN COMPOSITION TEXTBOOKS
James McDonald
"ARE YOU A STUDENT?": TUTORING STRATEGIES FOR YOUNG FACULTY TUTORS IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE WRITING CENTER
Alison McMonagle
READING OURSELVES: DYNAMIC CRITERIA MAPPING AS ASSESSMENT FOR ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE SESSIONS
Crystal Mueller
NAVIGATING CROSS-CURRICULA CURRENTS: PITT'S FRESHMAN ENGINEERING WRITING PROGRAM
Julie Percha
NAVIGATING DARK WATERS:
INITIATING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MISUSING SOURCES IN THE WRITING CENTER AND THE UNIVERSITY
Ted Roggenbuck
RE-ENVISIONING THE WAVE:
A CRITICAL APPROACH TO THE LOWER/HIGHER ORDER CONCERN FRAMEWORK FOR NON-NATIVE ENGLISH WRITERS
Shauna Russell
"SITUATIONAL NAVIGATION":
USING SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP TO IDENTIFY NEEDS, INDIVIDUALIZE TUTORING, AND NAVIGATE TO INDEPENDENCE
Eric Sentell
Saturday
N.1
CALHOUN
3:20 pm — 4:30 pm
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Roundtable/ NCPTW
THE CHANGING WINDS OF WRITING CENTERS WITHIN UNIVERSITIES
Andrea Vittorio and GWU Writing Center Staff, The George Washington University
As sea-faring institutions floating upon the larger ocean of universities, writing centers face an ever-changing wind of influence.
Are writing centers today simply following the trade winds and co-existing peacefully alongside universities? Are they going
against the wind and cutting their own path? Or are writing centers yielding to powerful winds and being swallowed by the sea ?
With changing winds as a starting point, we will discuss the changing role of writing centers as institutions within universi ties.
The session will start off with a presentation by our tutors about general attitudes toward writing centers within universities.
By engaging in a discussion involving audience participation, we will then examine the role of writing centers today inside the
greater expanse of academia.
N.2
CARROLL
Lightning Session: Safe Harbors II
CALMING THE SEA: CREATING A COMFORTABLE TUTORING ENVIRONMENT
N.1—N.2
Elizabeth Sawyer, Julie Gilley, and Robert Sawyer, Catawba College
In her article, “Talk to Me: Engaging Reluctant Writers,” Muriel Harris discusses various reasons that writers often feel uncomfortable during a tutorial. A writing center should represent a safe harbor where writers can navigate the rough waves of academic
pressures. We were thus curious to learn more about what factors make writers at our college feel reluctant so that we can improve our practice as tutors and students’ engagement during tutorials. In particular, we wanted to determine to what degree
the sex of the tutor, the tutor’s personality and tutoring style (directive v. non-directive), the tutor’s communication style, the
tutor’s feedback, and the physical environment of the center affect how comfortable students feel.
To answer our questions, we conducted a quantitative study by surveying students at the completion of each session. We will
report on which of the above factors students felt would make them most comfortable. Also, we will discuss whether different
student groups (for example: athletes, theater students, science students, and so on) felt more comfortable with different tutoring styles.
Practice & Application/ Lightning Talk/ NCPTW
CRESTS AND TROUGHS: CALMING THE TROUBLED WATERS OF KNOWLEDGE DISPARITY IN TUTORING SESSIONS
Stacia Gray, Jennifer Lozano, and Cheryl Rauh, Kansas State University
Often in the Writing Center, tutors bring varying degrees of knowledge about curriculum and student identities before the session even begins. How can tutors navigate the gaps in knowledge between the student writer and the tutor? At Kansas State University the majority of Writing Center tutors are Graduate Teaching Assistants who have taught in the Expository Writing Program. In this lightning talk, Stacia Gray will explore the challenges of differentiating between the roles of teacher and tutor when
tutors are often the teachers and /or authors of the curriculum. Jennifer Lozano’s talk begins by discussing the "knowledge" that
tutors have of specific student populations such as athletes, which is often informed by institutional stereotypes and prejudices.
Her presentation explores how much this awareness informs tutor practice (for better or worse), as well as how these students
can best be served. In other sessions, students bring curricular knowledge that is unfamiliar to the tutor. Cheryl Rauh’s talk will
examine how flash narratives can be used to help students develop topic ideas and content for subjects outside the knowledge
base of the tutor. Break out sessions will explore ways to navigate the knowledge gaps tutors experience, working toward successful tutor-writer interactions.
Saturday
N.2
3:20 pm — 4:30 pm
CARROLL (continued)
Practice & Application/ Lightning Talk/ NCPTW
“A CHALLENGE CONSTANTLY RENEWED”: LEARNING ABOUT TUTORING BY REFLECTING ON OUR PRACTICE
Betsy Bowen, Eric Clayton, Mary K. Merz, Kathryn Reilly, and Tara Roby, Fairfield University
In a call for social reform, President Johnson said that he sought “not a safe harbor, a resting place, … a finished work.” Rather, he
said, our task is “a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the
marvelous products of our labor.” In these four lightning talks, tutors will explore what it means to approach writing center tutoring as “a challenge constantly renewed.”
1.
Preparing to tutor: [Roby] How does a good writer become a good tutor? This talk traces the development of a tutor, from
recruitment through tutor training.
2.
Learning from practice (1): *Merz+ As Edgington notes (2008), reading and listening to students’ texts is both essential and
under-researched. This talk asks, “What happens as tutors read drafts aloud?” and uses excerpts from conference recordings to answer the question.
3.
Learning from practice (2): [Clayton] As Newkirk (1989) notes, agenda-setting contributes to the success of a conference.
This talk uses excerpts from conference recordings to examine how reluctant writers set agendas.
4.
“Products of our labor”: *Reilly+ The Peer Tutoring Alumni Research Project claims that tutoring benefits tutors, in college
and afterwards. Using interviews with current and former tutors, this talk investigates that claim.
N.3
HOPKINS
Cynthia Cochran and Sarah McCandless, Illinois College; Emily Welch Boles, University of Illinois at Springfield
Writing center tutors at large and medium universities launch their teaching careers by gaining skills in listening, collabor ative
learning, critical and analytical reading ability, and becoming a professional (Kail). Bourell’s scholarship adds that tutors gain
administrative skills valuable for teaching. What happens to tutors at small liberal arts colleges, who play multiple roles , come
from all majors, and have diverse career paths? This panel examines the development of skills and traits of small college tut ors
through their careers, first as apprentice consultants, then as consultants, then as alumni -- graduate students and professionals
on various careers paths. The first speaker, an undergraduate head consultant, will share results of a survey modified from the
Peer Tutor Alumni Research Project (Kail, Gillespie, and Hughes); she will compare current apprentices, consultants, and alum ni,
and hand out sample questions to audience members. The second speaker, an alumna working as an Instructional Technology
specialist, will discuss what she gained from her writing center work. The final speaker, a director, will explore the implic ations
of the study on assessment and pedagogy. She will lead in the audience participation segment, using the sample questions.
N.4
MCKELDON
HOLDING ONTO THE KNOWN IN THE TUTOR TO TEACHER TRANSITION
Robin Gallaher, Brent Chappelow, Katie Charczuk, CJ Clark, Mindee Lieske, and Marcus Meade,
Northwest Missouri State University
Our roundtable will offer participants an opportunity to discuss the transition from tutor to teacher that graduate students
often must negotiate, and specifically how tutors and teachers use definitions of tutoring and teaching to smooth over and
complicate this transition. Having been trained first as tutors, the student participants have thought about the separation between tutoring and teaching in ways that enable them to conceptualize their tutoring tasks as separate from those of teachers.
They have been taught that the value of their contributions as tutors is partly due to the separation between tutoring and
teaching. But as most of them were having their first college teaching experiences, the separation between these tasks and
their definitions became more confusing. The presenters each represent a unique perspective on making this transition, and in
some instances on holding the tutor and teacher positions simultaneously.
N.2—N.4
LAUNCHING CAREERS FROM WRITING CENTER HARBORS
Saturday
N.5
E. A. POE
3:20 pm — 4:30 pm
“SAILING AWAY FROM SAFE HARBOR”: SELECTING AND TRAINING TUTORS AT A NEW SECONDARY WRITING CENTER
Amy Holthause, Mt. Hebron High School
The literary adventurer Mark Twain encourages us “sail away from the safe harbor...Explore. Dream. Discover.” I did just that
in 2009 when I developed a writing center at Mt. Hebron High School in Howard County, MD. This presentation will focus on
methods used to select and train high school students to become peer tutors. Techniques discussed will include models from
the classic Emily Meyer and Louise Z. Smith work The Practical Tutor, Richard Kent’s A Guide to Creating Student-Staffed Writing Centers, and Leigh Ryan and Lisa Zimmerelli’s The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors, as well as tutor recruitment and applications, journaling/reflective activities, role-playing scenerios, and student research projects. Throughout this presentation, I
will provide personal insights on the effectiveness of each activity in addition to highlights from the center’s first year of operation as we “sail*ed+ away” from the status quo to develop a more meaningful writing program.
NEW HANDS TAKE THE HELM: SECONDARY STUDENTS AS FOUNDING DIRECTORS OF A WRITING CENTER
Jane Greer, University of Missouri, Kansas City; Djana Trofimoff, Southwest Early College Campus
N.5
Numerous researchers (Childers, Kent, Jordan) have written about Writing Centers in secondary schools and how they support
students’ acquisition of a wide range of literacy skills and social competencies. To date, discussions of secondary Writing Centers have, though, tended to presume that teachers will create and administer Writing Centers located in high schools.
The two presenters will collaboratively describe how a group of sophomores undertook a year-long classroom project focused on
creating a Writing Center at their urban high school. The students visited university writing centers, interviewed high school faculty about their needs/desires for a Writing Center, read research on Writing Centers, presented their plans to a variety of constituencies, trained as peer tutors, and solicited institutional support for their work. Their Writing Center will open in September
2010, and they will be designated the Founding Student Directors. Audience members interested in creating Writing Centers in
secondary schools will leave this presentation with a clear understanding of the processes that the students worked through to
create their Writing Center. More broadly, the presentation creates opportunities to reconsider leadership structures and how
the work of establishing and running a Writing Center enters exciting, uncharted waters when new hands take the helm.
ELEMENTS KEY TO ENGAGING A SCHOOL IN BUILDING A LITERACY CENTER AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL
Claudia M. Furman, New Trier High School
This session will focus on initiating and maintaining a school wide literacy center at the secondary level and will highlight five
major areas essential to building a literacy program and literacy center. An assessment tool for organizing and evaluating programs will be introduced. Participants will take this assessment and use the results to identify strengths and weakness in their
current or developing program and practices that will support the services and function of a literacy center.
THE HIGH SCHOOL WRITING CENTER: A SAFE HARBOR FOR SELF-ESTEEM
Katherine Palacio, Monsignor Edward Pace High School
This session will report on the results of a study that was conducted in order to learn about how a high school writing center
may impact student attitudes about writing. The high school students who participated in the study were interviewed before
and after a series of writing center tutorials, and their answers were transcribed and analyzed. The tutors were interviewed as
well. The results show that high school writing centers do have the potential to positively impact student attitudes towards
writing. The research process and the results will be shared with the audience, and the audience will be invited to share their
ideas, questions, or comments about the connection between writing centers and student attitudes towards writing. The audience will also be invited to brainstorm additional studies that, if conducted, might help reinforce arguments for the creation of
high school writing centers.
Saturday
N.6
3:20 pm — 4:30 pm
PRATT A
INSPIRING IMAGINATIONS: CREATIVE ACTIVITIES FOR WRITERS OF ALL LEVELS
Karen Mejia and Denise Pichardo, St. Thomas University
The tutoring staff at the University Writing Center at St. Thomas University developed a series of creative, writing-based Directed Learning Activities (DLAs). These DLAs target specific writing skills, from idea development to proofreading, and have
often been practiced with underprepared, first-semester freshmen enrolled in the developmental writing course. Tutors have
witnessed students’ tension in writing decrease, while exploring academic writing through a creative and fun activity. DLAs
have made students feel more comfortable working in our writing center environment, allowing them to return for future sessions. The participants will deliver an interactive presentation explaining the purpose and use of a specific audience.
N.7
PRATT B
Research & Theory/ Workshop/ NCPTW
WRITING AS TUTORS: WHAT BEARING DOES TUTORING THEORY/PRACTICE HAVE ON TUTORS AS UNDERGRADUATE WRITERS?
Molly Katz and Joel Bock, Colorado College
N.8
SCHAEFER
USING STUDENT RESEARCH TO TRANSFORM WRITING CENTERS INTO STUDENT-RUN SAFE HARBORS
Catherine DeLazzero, Emily Clay, Mary Henderson, Eliana Moreira, Mirham Rojas, and Tazmin Uddin, The College of New Rochelle
This workshop serves as an interactive overview of a writing pedagogy course which supports student research proposals that
transform the writing center into a student-run safe harbor. The theoretical framework which guides the presentation is provided by Donald M. Murray’s “Teaching Writing as a Process Not Product,” and the “personal growth approach to writing” as
presented in Soven’s “Composition Curricula: Four Approaches.” This course offers students the opportunity to write research
proposals to reform an aspect of the writing center, thus transforming the center into a safe harbor with changes both visible
and intangible; implemented reforms include design and decoration, an online scheduling program and writing lab, a log of
tutee progress, and CRLA tutor certification.
The presentation includes guided reflections at the beginning and end, as well as interactive activities following short presentations on the effects of the research and its implementation. A brainstorming session and a grand finale of symbolically
throwing one’s obstacles into the ocean conclude the presentation. The enduring nature of creating real programs gives us
voice and ensures that our ideas will create movement like ripples in the ocean; yet instead of fading, these ripples will grow
with time, allowing for future creativity and innovation.
N.6—N.8
Recent publication of work which examines the bearing of writing center theory and practice on the subsequent professional
lives of former peer tutors (Dinitz and Kiedaisch 2009) and Gillespie, Hughes, and Kail’s Peer Writing Tutor Alumni Research
Project evidence a burgeoning interest in articulating the ongoing benefits of peer tutoring. But what bearing does peer tutoring have on tutors while they are undergraduates? More specifically, what impact, negative and/or positive, does peer tutoring have on tutors as undergraduate writers? In what regard does exposure to tutoring theory and practice facilitate the writing of tutors, and in what ways might it complicate that process? Our workshop would endeavor to begin a dialogue among
peer tutors across the country and beyond regarding their acts and perceptions as writers. After conducting a survey of peer
tutors at Colorado College, we observed that while tutors reported increased self-awareness as writers, the manner in which
tutors described the nature and implications of this self-awareness varied widely. It is important, then, for writing tutors to
explore ways in which increased self-awareness can be directed more pointedly at improving tutors’ writing. Our workshop
activities would engage participants in informal writing and discussion to this end.
Saturday
N.9
WASHINGTON
3:20 pm — 4:30 pm
The Writing Center within the University & Institution/ Roundtable/ NCPTW
WE HEAR THE OCEAN CALLING: DEVELOPING NON-TUTORING PROJECTS TO EXPAND THE WRITING CENTER’S REACH
Markedus Marshall, Earl Ingram, and Rachel Hill, Jackson State Community College
N.9
For many Writing Centers, staffing and funding are limited, and everyone in the Center must take on multiple roles to ensure
that the Center thrives. The tutors at the Writing Center at Jackson State Community College perform creative projects that
serve as outreach, professionalization, and advertising. Markedus Marshall provides an overview of his creation of commercials for the Writing Center. Earl Ingram explains his monthly newsletter on writing around campus for students, faculty, and
staff. Rachel Hill describes the workshops she organizes for student writers and adjunct instructors as well as how we use technology to expand tutoring options. Information will include both specific, hands-on and general tips for others who may want
to develop outreach projects at their own Centers.
Last Name
Abels
Acciani
Achilles
Ackerman
Acosta
Adams
Adkins
Afghani
Aleksa
Allen
Alva
Ammiano
Anderson
Anderson
Armstrong
Atkins-Gordeeva
Atterbery
Auten
Babb
Baer
Bahrainwala
Bailey
Baker
Baldwin
Balester
Ballard
Bancroft
Barton
Bastian
Bausch
Beebe
Belmore
Bennett
Bennett
First Name
Kim
Quin
Emily
Patricia
Jessica
G. Travis
Tabetha
Javaria
Vainis
Kelly R.
Brandon
Kimberly
Mike
Lane
Elizabeth
Jennifer
Stina
Janet Gebhart
Jacob S.
Melina
Lamiyah Z.
Steven
Lori
Dianna
Valerie
Kim
Joy
Anna
Liliana
Dave
Sue
Thomas
Dennis
Cole
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Texas A&M University
Northern Virginia Community College
Texas State University
Warren Wilson College
Oregon State
Abilene Christian University
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
tabetha_adkins @tamu-commerce.edu
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
[email protected]
Central Michigan University
Southwest Minnesota State University
Michigan State University
Towson University
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
St. Olaf College
American University
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Jackson State Community College
Yeshiva College
DePaul Universitiy
University of Illinois
Northampton Community College
Salt Lake Community College
Drew University
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Texas A&M Commerce
Merrimack College
Kansas State University at Salina
Colby College
Affiliation
UNC-Chapel Hill
LIM College
G.6
G.2
H.12
F.3, G.10
E.8, SW.2
B.2, TS.7, J.1, S.1
D.8
S.1
J.9
I.4
L.5
F.12, I.12
G.1, TS.4, S.2
B.12
K.1
B.6
H.9
F.5
H.11, L.4
J.8
C.13
D.2
A.9
K.11, S.2
M.4
S.1
E.12
G.7
G.1
I.14
G.4
K.6
Session
G.1, FS.3, S.2
C.10
INDEX, A—B
University of Iowa
College of Charleston
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Washington College
Southern Connecticut State University
Berkeley Preparatory School
The Ohio State University
Caldwell Community College and Technical Institute
University of Illinois at Springfield
Shippensburg University
Kaplan University
Yeshiva College
Derek
Boczkowski
Laura
Bokus
Emily Welch
Boles
Kara
Bollinger
Nicole
Bollinger
Joni
Boone
Elizabeth
Boquet
Simeon
Botwinick
Holly Bouma-Johnston
Courtenay
Bouvier
Betsy
Bowen
Lindsay A.
Bower
Janet
Boyd
John
Boyd
Heather
Brady
Tom
Brandt
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Columbus State Community College
University of Michigan
Moore College of Art and Design
Mira Costa College
Oakton High School
Daytona State College
University of Michigan Flint
Colorado College
Bertsch
Besa
Bialik
Bittner
Blahnik
Blankenship
Blankenship
Blochl
Block
Blumner
Bock
Deborah
Andrew
Kristen
Holly
Brandi
Beth
Richard D.
Kyle
Rebecca
Jacob
Joel
[email protected]
[email protected]
Orange Coast College
Baruch College Writing Center
Berta
Bertino
Melissa
Keri
Email
[email protected]
Affiliation
UNCG
Penn State University
Purdue University
Last Name
Benson
Beresford
Bergmann
First Name
Alan
Elizabeth
Linda
E.15
A.6
N.3
L.2
A.13, S.1
K.8
L.9
E.12
S.1
I.8
N.2
E.8
F.11
H.5
C.9
C.8
E.15
G.3
I.10
A.14
FS.5
I.5
F.11
G.5
H.8
I.9
N.7
B.15
C.5
Session
A.10
L.6
H.6, J.11
INDEX, B
Last Name
Bredahl
Breidenstein
Breitschwerdt
Brizee
Bromley
Brooks
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Bruce
Brylawski
Buchanan
Burdette
Burkett
Burmester
Burns
Burris
Burstein
Butler
Cain
Callari
Cameron
Canada
Canagarajah
Canino
Capaldi
Capdevielle
Carithers
Carlock
Carney
Carpenter
Carroll
Carter
Castagnello
Castaldo
First Name
Samantha
Megan
Chelsey
Allen
Pam
Marilee
Cheryl
Jackson
Davis
Prairie
Harold
Shanti
Rachel
Tim
Curtis
Ian
Beth
Ellen
Caroline
Lauren
Dennis
Kathleen Shine
Kendra
Emily
Shireen
Ruth
Geneva H.
Mary-Therese
Matthew D.
Cheryl
Janine
Jason R.
Russell G.
Meg
Karin
Ricardo
Annalisa
Widener University
Towson University
University of Oklahoma
Penn State Brandywine
University of Notre Dame
Texas Christian University
University of Pittsburgh
Case Western Reserve University
Eastern Kentucky University
Rhode Island College
Stern College for Women
Western Oregon University
Merrimack College
Columbia College Chicago
Towson University
Stephen S. Austin State University
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Central Washington University
Nova Southeastern University
Gogebic Community College
Georgia State University
Affiliation
Drew University
University of Michigan-Flint
Salisbury University
Loyola University Maryland
Pomona College
B.12
D.9
E.1
E.13
K.1
A.6, H.13
I.12
I.13, S.1
FS.5
G.5
A.6
S.1
S.1
E.12
A.7
B.8
M.9, S.1
S.1
B.12
J.8
I.15
A.8
I.11
B.8
D.5
D.12
F.14
L.9
S.1
I.4
B.5
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Session
M.4
K.3
J.6
F.Keynote
E.15, SW.1
F.3
Email
INDEX, B—C
First Name
Sari
Christina
Alexander
Amber
Robert
Laurie
Victoria
Pisarn B.
Jui-chuan
John
Autumn J.
Brent
Katie
Amanda
Stephanie
Malcolm
Pam
Zahid
John
Coleen
Laura
Robert
CJ
Emily
Eric
Kurtis
Linda
Cynthia
Jane
Heidi
Adrea
Ashley
Heather
Tammy
Frankie
Martha Dale
David
Last Name
Causey
Cavaco
Cavaluzzo
Caylor
Cedillo
Cella
Centrella
Chamcharatsri
Chang
Chapin
Chapoff
Chappelow
Charczuk
Charles
Cheslock
Childers
Childers
Choudhury
Chrisman
Cirocco
Citino
Clark
Clark
Clay
Clayton
Clements
Coblentz
Cochran
Cogie
Coley
Coley
Collom
Comer
Conard-Salvo
Condon
Cooley
Cooper
Purdue University
Henderson University
The McCallie School
University of Iowa
LIM College
The College of New Rochelle
Kaplan University
University of Houston
Illinios College
Southern Illinois University
University of Nevada, Reno
SUNY College at Old Westbury
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
National Chengschi University, Taipei, Taiwan
University of Baltimore
Bloomsburg University
Edgewood College
Affiliation
University of Wisconson--Marathon County
Fashion Institute of Technology
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
Session
I.12
FS.7
I.3
S.1
A.4
D.13
K.4
J.8
E.8
I.6
I.10
N.4
N.4
L.11
I.2
D.7
A.5, C.8, D.7, E.10
I.8
I.13, S.1
I.10
I.13
C.10
N.4
N.8, S.2
N.2
K.8
D.4
N.3
E.13
A.7
K.1
S.1
J.6
E.10, TS.4, G.1, S.2
C.11, TS.3, L.9
D.4
S.2
INDEX, C
Last Name
Cooper
Cooper
Corbett
Cordaro
Cordell
Cozzens
Crawford
Crumpley
Cserno
Cucciarre
Cuddeback
Curtright
Cusson
Cutler
Czajkowski
Dailey
Daven
Davis
Davis
Day
Deal
Dedo
DeHerrerra
DeJessa
DeLazzero
Demirel
Denny
Denny
DePriest
Deutsch
Devet
Di Toro
Diaz-Gilbert
Diepenbrock
Dinitz
First Name
George H.
Shelia
Steven
Danielle
Jocelyn
Christine
Frances
Elliot
Isabell
Christine
Jacquie
Lauren
Jerome
Adam
Mike
Denise
Ryan
Kevin M.
Octavia
Patrick
Michelle
David
Eddie
Amanda
Catherine
Bahadir
Harry
Melody
Ann
Aaron
Bonnie D.
Douglas
Miriam M.
Chloe
Sue
College of Charleston
York College/CUNY
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
University of Houston-Clear Lake
University of Vermont
St. John's University of New York
Oklahoma State University
DePaul Universitiy
Illinois Wesleyan University
East Central University
St. John's University
Longwood University
University of Massachussetts Amherst
Samford University
Lynchburg College
Affiliation
Bennett College
Mount Union College
Merrimack College
Agnes Scott College
San Antonio College
DePaul Universitiy
Universities at Shady Grove
University of Delaware
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
TS.1, D.9, H.3, SW.1,
F.4
S.1
L.5
E.8
A.11
F.13
E.9
H.2
Session
I.7
J.3
C.9
E.7
I.14
A.6, G.11
D.4, TS.7
SW.1
F.8
E.4
S.1
L.7
E.5
SW.1
J.10
E.11, S.2
A.7
F.6
H.3
F.6
H.15
H.11
C.7
L.3
E.11, N.8, S.2
B.9
INDEX, C—D
Last Name
Doan
Dolan
Dombalagian
Dortch
Dos Reis
Dosch
Dowdey
Dragseth
Driscoll
Duerksen
Dunn, Jr.
Duperron
Dvorak
Dyer
Dykema
Eagan
Eatherly
Eck
Efthymiou
Elder
Elwood
Enders
Eodice
Epps-Robertson
Ervin
Eslinger
Estes
Ettinger
Evertz
Falk
Fallon
Fargo
Farkas
Featherstone
Fehrs
Fels
Ferrel
First Name
Nguyen
Lindsay
Andrew
Megan
Orlando
Kiffen
Diane
Eric
Dana
Erika
John S.
Lucile
Kevin
Patricia
Meghan
Taylor
Laurel
Allison
Andrea R.
Cristyn
Ryan
Doug
Michele
Candace R.
Christopher
Ashley
Brad
Sara
Kathy
Matthew
Brian
Hailley
Carol-Ann
Jared Jay
Caitlin
Dawn
Thomas
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health SciJames Madison University
West Virginia University
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Lake Forest College
Hamilton College
Purdue University
Drew University
Shenandoah University
Syracuse University
Western Kentucky University
Drew University
University of Maine
Carleton College
University of Baltimore
Fashion Institute of Technology-SUNY
Affiliation
Colby College
Swarthmore College
Virginia Tech University
Syracuse University
Sam Houston University
University of Missouri at Columbia
MT. Union College
Eastern Michigan University
Dickinson College
St. Thomas University
Widener University
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
A.11
B.13, E.2
M.1
H.2
F.7
Session
K.6
K.10
A.8
D.14
L.3
B.12
D.4, SW.1
D.15, L.1
E.7
L.3
A.4
K.9
A.6, H.13, SW.2
B.5
B.2, J.1, S.1
S.1
K.2
M.9
E.12
F.11
M.4
F.11
D.11, L.9
C.12
C.2
M.4
I.7
K.5
B.6
I.6
F.2, L.8
S.1
INDEX, D—F
First Name
Jane
Caitlyn
Amanda
Jennifer L.
Lauren
Courtney
Ellen
Jennifer
Caroline
Courtney
Courtney
Carly
Tara
Sarah
Claudia M.
Amelia
Robin
Iselin
Cinthia
Sarah
Elena
Clint
Anthony
Maeve
Brian
Anne Ellen
Diana
Christine
Katie
Stefanie
Calie
Matthew
Paula
Julie
Katherine
Kristi
Last Name
Fife
Finger
Finneseth
Finstrom
Fitzgerald
Flint
Foley
Follett
Fraissinet
Frantz
Frederick
Fricano
Friedman
Friedman
Furman
Furrow
Gallaher
Gambert
Gannet
Ganong
Garcia
Gardner
Garrison
Gately
Gatten
Geller
George
Ghattas
Gibson
Gibson
Gihl
Gilchrist
Gillespie
Gilley
Gillies
Girdharry
Fenwick High School
University of Iowa
Florida International University
Catawba College
Niles North High School
University of Massachussets-Boston
Hamilton College
University of Texas at Austin
St. Johns University
Kennesaw State University
[email protected]
[email protected]
DePaul Universitiy
Yeshiva College
Hamilton College
Niles West High School
Drexel University
The Evergreen State College
Long Island University-Brooklyn
Widener University
New Trier High School
Macalester College
The George Washington University Law School
Dickinson College
Salt Lake Community College
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
Affiliation
Western Kentucky University
Upper Iowa University
Session
C.2
J.9
S.1
J.2
E.12, F.15, J.11
M.9
D.1
H.4
J.5
B.7, S.1
A.12
J.1, S.1
B.5
I.7
N.5
B.6
N.4
G.4
TS.2
K.12
F.3
B.14, J.11, FS.5
S.1
M.9
B.1
L.8
L.3
D.10
S.1
I.10
I.11
TS.4, G.1, S.2
M.5, S.1
N.2
D.1
I.1
INDEX, F—G
First Name
Carl
Lee Ann
Shauna
Beth
Miriam
Angela
Margarette
Brandy
Becky
Christopher P.
Robert "Bobby"
Suzanne
Stacia
Sasha
Zachary
Laura
Jane
Kathleen
Rachel
Alex
Dennis
Ben
Nancy
Shareen
Nicole
Alexandra
Tim
Alexandria
Elda
Catherine
Emily
John
Lauren
R. Mark
Helena M.
Emily
Meghan
Last Name
Glover
Glowzenski
Gobble
Godbee
Gofine
Gonzalez
Goss
Grabow
Graham
Graves
Gray
Gray
Gray
Graybosch
Green
Greenfield
Greer
Gregoire
Greil
Grell
Gresdo
Grillot
Grimm
Grogan
Grubner
Guerriero
Guymon
Hadden
Hadzic
Hagan
Hall
Hall
Hall
Hall
Hall
Hall
Hancock
University of Phoenix
York College of Pennsylvania
Boston University
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Loras College
Park University
Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, LLP
Michigan Tech University
National University
University of North Carolina
Macalester College
Eastern Michigan University
Fashion Institute of Technology, SUNY
Mount Holyoke College
University of Missouri, Kansas City
Merrimack College
Affiliation
Mount St.Mary's University
Duquesne University
Northampton Community College
Whitworth University
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
Session
D.7
J.12
A.9
TS.3, G.9
E.12
G.10
S.1
H.5
B.6
D.15, E.9
I.4
A.4
N.2
K.7
M.8
E.16, J.7
N.5
I.14
D.10
S.1
F.9, G.8
G.4
G.2
TS.4, G.1, SW.2, S.2
E.12
S.2
C.14
A.12
L.4
A.13, S.1
C.1
D.16
E.6
F.2
G.11
K.12
I.1
INDEX, G—H
First Name
Amelie
Al M.
Matt
Roxanne
Hannah
Molly
Ann
Susanmarie
Paula
Laurel E.
Muriel
Katie
Lynn
Vicky
Richard
Daniel
Janell
Elaine
Emily Walker
Chene
Heidi
Rachel
Marnie K.
Sophie
Mary
Valerie
Patti
Paul
Amy
Mercedez D.
Molly J.
Rachel
Dean
Corrine
Emily
Allison
Donald
Last Name
Hanlon
Harahap
Harbough
Harde
Hardin
Harper
Harrington
Harrington
Harrington
Harris
Harris
Hart
Hassan
Hatch
Hay
Haymes
Haynes
Hays
Heady
Heady
Heaton
Hedrick
Heggie
Heller
Henderson
Henley
Henlon-Baker
Henne
Hermanson
Hernandez
Herold
Hill
Hinnen
Hinton
Hipps
Hitt
Hoaglin
[email protected]
DePaul Universitiy
Stanford University
Lake Forest College
University of Texas-Arlington
University of the West
Madison East High
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Liberty University
Longwood University
Everett Community College
Colby College
York College/CUNY
Purdue University
WCOnline
Syracuse University
[email protected]
San Francisco State University
University of Alberta
[email protected]
Email
Affiliation
Session
S.1
A.4
J.9
A.3
M.2
S.2
E.13
H.2
K.6
A.11
A.5, H.9
E.9, S.2
A.12
C.14
H.10
I.15
B.12
S.2
D.5
F.6
S.1
SW.1
L.1
J.7
N.8
K.1
C.4
K.2
B.8
J.9
I.12
N.9
B.10
F.2
S.1
M.1
E.1
INDEX, H
First Name
Henry
Ann
Cassandra E.
Allison
James
Amy
Me Shach
Samantha A.
Tre
Danlu
Brad
Liz
Adan
Melissa
Earl
Mary
Jeannie
Fikri S.
Patrick
Brian
Dawn
Rachel
Amber
Jamie
Andrew
Theepica
Karen
Joshua
Alexis
Jackie
Jeanette
Kerri
Harvey
Steve
Rachael A.
Nancy
Parveen
Last Name
Hodes
Hoelscher
Holden
Holland
Holsinger
Holthause
Hopkins
Howard
Howard
Hu
Hughes
Huntington
Hussain
Ianetta
Ingram
Inks
Irons
Ismail
Jackson
Janiczek
Janke
Jardine
Jensen
Jesson
Jeter
Jeyaizajah
Johnson
Johnson
Johnson
Johnson
Jordan
Jordan
Kail
Kaminczak
Kane
Karabeyoglu
Karim
Mt. Hebron High School
Drew University
Grand Valley State University
The University of North Carolina at Pembroke
Macalester College
Sullivan County Community College
Colby College
Pennsylvania State University-Fayette
Cal Poly State University
Edison High School
La Salle University
Niles West High School
Drew University
Francis Marion University
Glenbrook North High School
Mississippi College
University of Maine
Texas A&M
Affiliation
Fenwick High School
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
Session
I.11
S.2
I.3
A.1, K.1
M.1
N.5
M.4
I.2
J.4
B.6
C.1, H.6, S.1, SW.1
E.3
K.6
F.15, J.11, FS.4, SW.1
L.4, N.9
D.6, M.1
F.7
F.8
K.7
M.5
E.13
F.12
I.5
B.1
B.3, TS.8, H.4, J.10, SW.2
M.4
A.13, D.13, S.1
K.1
K.13
M.2
C.8
A.6, FS.6
K.5, S.1
G.1, S.2
J.8
S.1
J.9
INDEX, H—K
First Name
Rebecca
Molly
Adina
Elizabeth
Nadine
Melissa
Matt
Kelsey
Mike
Kristopher
Courtney
Daniel
Stephanie
Dae-Joong
Janai
Carolyn
Ellen
Roberta
Maksim
Joshua
Taylor
Deanna
Virginia L.
Zachery
Teresa
Dylan
Shweta
Emily
Jennifer
Khant Khant
Michelle
Carla A.
Ariel
Noreen
John
Laura
Jennifer
Caroline S.
Last Name
Affiliation
Katz
Katz
Colorado College
Kay-Gross
Keenan
Keene
Indiana University Kokomo
Keith
Boise State University
Kelley
Kelliher
Fenwick High School
Kelly
Champlain College
Kelly
Kelsch
Kenzie
Purdue University
Kerschbaum
Kim
Kinnebrew
Kinslow
Cameron University
Kirby
Kjesrud
Western Washington University
Klimovich
Knight
Kobran
Dickinson College
Koenig
Komenda
Orange Coast College
Koppelmann
Purdue University
Kramer
Central Washington University
Krieger
Fenwick High School
Krishnan
Boston University
Kroska
Kunka
Kyaw
Carleton College
LaFrance University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
Lake
University of Maryland, College Park
Landwehr
Lape
Dickinson College
Lauckner
LaVocca
Hofstra University
Lawrence
Ledeboer
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
Session
I.1
N.7
E.12
J.11
H.14
K.11
I.7
I.11
C.11
C.14
K.7
B.2, M.12, S.1
G.9
G.7
I.12
D.4
E.9, S.2
FS.2, SW.2
I.4
K.13
M.10
F.1
B.15
E.14
E.13, SW.2
I.11
D.16
L.2
H.11
B.6
C.9, H.8
J.2
S.1
K.9, M.10
B.13
L.10
L.3
J.9
INDEX, K—L
First Name
Sohui
Jessica
Z.Z
Neal
Steven T.
Katie
Jamie
Mindee
Emilee
Sara
Tayler
Elizabeth
Elise R.
Patrick
Jennifer
Amber
Heather
Andrea
Jason
Barbara
Kati S.
William J.
Denisse
Jo
Pamela
Krista
Andrea
Elise
Imani
Lindsey
Markedus
Diane
Jen
Dorothy
Michael
Mary
Sarah
Jon
Last Name
Lee
Legg
Lehmberg
Lerner
Lessner
Levin
Lewis
Lieske
Lindley
Littlejohn
Lofquist
Lombard
Lorenz
Love
Lozano
Luce
Lunsford
Lunsford
Luther
Lutz
Macaluso
Macauley Jr.
Maciel
Mackiewicz
Main
Majcen
Malouf
Marifian
Marshall
Marshall
Marshall
Martinez
Marx
Matthews
Mattison
McCall
McCandless
McCarter
Salt Lake City Community College
Kaplan University
Hofstra University
Wittenberg University
Purdue University
Illinios College
San Antonio College
Affiliation
Stanford University
Northern Michigan University
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
The George Washington University
Fenwick High School
Daytona State College
Syracuse University
Stanford University
Syracuse University
Fenwick High School
The College of Wooster
Auburn University
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
Session
G.4
H.7
F.14
C.9, TS.6, H.8, SW.1
E.10
H.6
F.7
N.4
B.9
A.10
A.2
I.11
I.9
B.2, J.1, S.1
N.2
C.12
C.14
S.Keynote
B.12
J.11
I.11
C.3, F.10
A.7
H.2
A.8
S.1
F.12
J.7
D.10
D.2
L.4, N.9
K.8
L.10
K.13
E.14, H.9, SW.1
M.12, S.1
N.3
D.4
INDEX, L—M
First Name
Nora
Julie
Kevin
James
Karen
Alan
Kathleen
Megan
Laura E.
Delma
Alison
Rachel
Tom
Meg
Marcus
Brenda
Karen
Cheryl Hawkinson
Britney
Sue
Lora
Alexandra
Nita
Mary K.
Angela
Stephanie
Meg
Jared
Yaakov
Charlotte
Mia
Rebekah
Claire
Monique
Burke
Michael
Carol
Clyde
Last Name
McCook
McCormick
McCurdy
McDonald
McDonnell
McDonnell
McFadden
McGrath
McLaughlin
McLeod-Porter
McMonagle
McMurray
McNamara
McSwain
Meade
Meisel
Mejia
Melkun
Menconi
Mendelsohn
Mendenhall
Mentus
Meola
Merz
Messenger
Meuth
Mikovits
Miller
Miller
Mitchell
Mitchell
Mitsein
Moblard
Modeste
Moeller
Mohon
Mohrbacher
Moneyhum
Boise State University
DePaul Universitiy
University of Mary Washington
Saint Louis University
Purdue University Calumet
Youngstown State University
Fenwick High School
Moravian College
Yeshiva College
Bennett College
Duquesne University
Malcolm Childers
St. Cloud State University
Affiliation
Carleton College
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
James Madison University
Drexel University
Drexel University
Wittenberg University
McNeese State University
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
Session
E.4
B.6
C.7
G.12, S.2
E.2, L.12
J.5
J.5
J.7
J.6
B.13
S.2
L.2
C.13
F.14
N.4
I.4
N.6
B.4
E.9, S.2
C.15
G.13
B.4
G.13
N.2
D.12
I.11
A.9
D.10
E.12
I.12
J.3
J.12
D.7
K.4
B.4
I.15
B.10
C.4
INDEX, M
Last Name
Monk
Moore
Moreira
Morgan
Morgan
Morley
Moroski
Morrison
Moss
Motz
Moussu
Mowday
Mueller
Mueller
Mulqueen
Musgjerd
Myers
Nairn
Nakaue
Navarra
Neil
Neufeld
Newsome
Nichols-Besel
Nicolas
Nielsen-Dube
Nieves
Northway
Novak
Nulton
Nulton
Odom
Olson
Olszweski
Omar
O'Meara
O'Neil
Orr
First Name
Matthew
Tara
Eliana
Conner
Emilee
Libbie
Karen-Elizabeth
Lauren
Emily
Stephanie
Lucie M.
Melissa
Crystal
Susan
Kerri
Kayla
Benjamin
Lyndall
Mitch
Patricia
Alexandria
Leo
Courtney
Kristen
Melissa
Kathryn
Neryamn
Kara
Kylie
Karen
Savannah
Mary
Bobbi
Aleksandra
Fatima
Ray
Caitie
Brian
Brookdale Community College/ City College of New
Lynchburg College
Hofstra University
Drew University
Merrimack College
Franklin and Marshall College
Drexel University
St. Olaf College
St. Louis College of Pharmacy
Nazaren High School, Brooklyn, NY
University of Alberta, Canada
Widener University
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Affiliation
Hofstra University
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
F.4
K.3
I.9
Session
L.10
B.11
N.8
K.3
S.1
G.11, H.6
I.3
B.4
S.1
L.5
F.6
B.5
S.2
A.11
D.9
S.1
D.6, M.1
G.6
G.12
L.10
M.8, S.1
I.12
I.12
L.9
C.9, H.8, M.4
B.8
FS.8
E.15, SW.1
J.9
J.5
M.11
D.10
G.7, SW.1, SW.2
K.12
B.6
INDEX, M—O
Last Name
Ovalles
Owolabi
Ozias
Palacio
Papper
Peek
Pegues
Pemberton
Percha
Perdue
Peterson
Phelan
Phillips
Phillips
Pichardo
Pillard
Plummer
Pobo
Polhemus
Polivka
Poncin
Pond
Praharsh
Price
Priest
Prindle
Pritchard
Provost
Rafoth
Raica-Klotz
Rauh
Reddy
Reedy
Reglin
Reid
Reilly
Reutter
Ribero
First Name
Miguel
Esther
Moira
Katherine
Carole Clark
Kimberly
Jutta
Michael
Julie
Sherry Wynn
Craig
Molly
Mandy
Daniel
Denise
Ali
Laura
Ken
Kara
Alison
Margaret
Kristen
Ananya
Steve
Jesse A.
Andrew
Melody
William
Ben
Helen
Cheryl
Ashley
Gannon
Jill
Lynn
Kathryn
Robert
Ana
Brookdale Community College/ City College of New
Widener University
DePaul Universitiy
DePaul Universitiy
Drexel University
Mississippi College
University of Maine
Northern Michigan University
Saginaw Valley State University
Drexel University
Lansing Community College
Indiana University, Bloomington
Widener University
Brookdale Community College
Oakland University
University of Alberta
Affiliation
Fenwick High School
Monsignor Edward Pace High School
Hofstra University
Park University
Georgia Southern Universiyt
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
F.4
N.2
B.5
SW.1
Session
M.5
I.11
TS.3, G.9, L.9
I.11, N.5
L.10
M.11
F.9, G.8
B.10
S.2
E.7
A.3
L.11
E.6
L.8
I.11, N.6
S.1
H.6
B.5
A.9
S.1
C.13
F.5
J.5
A.6, FS.6
I.1
K.5
K.13
F.14
H.14
H.5
N.2
J.5
M.6
TS.7, FS.5
INDEX, 0—R
First Name
Sydney
Andrew
Heather
Tara
Robert
Davey P.
Scott
Ted
Mirham
Alexander
Katie
Mary
Spencer
Julie
Sherita V.
Karen
Chelcie
Billy
Shauna
Michael
Elspeth
Andrea
Lindsay
Lori A.
Cynthia E.
Maya
Lydia
Colin
Denise
Elizabeth
Robert
Molly
Curtis
Ellen
Kurt
Katherine
Eliana
Laura
Last Name
Richardson
Rihn
Robinson
Roby
Rockett
Rockwell
Rogers
Roggenbuck
Rojas
Rosales
Rosman
Rosner
Roth
Rotz
Roundtree
Rowan
Rowell
Roy
Russell
Ruther
Ryan
Saathof
Sabatino
Salem
Sampson
Sanyal
Saravia
Sato
Sawyer
Sawyer
Sawyer
Scanlon
Scheck
Schendel
Schick
Schmidt
Schonberg
Schubert
University of Texas at Austin
Temple University
Drew University
DePaul Universitiy
Catawba College
Catawba College
California State University San Bernardino
Swarthmore College
University of Maine
Affiliation
Salem College
Kent State-Stark
York College/CUNY
Stanford University
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
Session
C.6
D.9
A.11
N.2
D.10
I.3
E.6
G.12, L.11, S.2
N.8
M.8
C.4
E.6
S.1
K.4
J.6
E.16
K.10
K.5
S.2
D.10
M.6
B.1
H.7
D.11
L.1
M.4
D.2
J.10
G.5
N.2
N.2
L.3
S.1
C.3
E.2
A.7
E.15, SW.1
E.2
INDEX, R—S
First Name
Sarah
Jonathan
Allison
Katie
Eric
Stephanie
Richard
Carol
Andrew
Maggie
Sharon
Steve
Meredith
Justin
Adrienne
Barbara
Reva
Naomi
Neil
Jeanne
Nathalie
Steve
Jay
Sewit
Su
Trixie
Jeanne
Andrea
Stephani
Nancy
Marissa
James
Penny H.
Jessie
Margaret
Christopher
Walton D.
Mark
Last Name
Schukraft
Schwab
Scoles
Sellinger
Sentell
Serenita
Severe
Severino
Shaner
Shea
Sheehan
Sherwood
Shinners
Short
Showalter
Shwom
Sias
Silver
Simpkins
Simpson
Singh-Corcoran
Singleton
Sloan
Slum
Smallen
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Sorkin
Soshi
Spears
Speas
St. Amand
Stahr
Stallings
Stallings
Stanley
Kent State University-Stark
St. Olaf College
Kent State University-Stark
Philadelphia University
University of Pittsburgh
Bennett College
Catawba College
Park University and The Graduate School
Purdue University
University of Iowa
Minnetonka High School
Glenbrook South High School
Northwestern University
Syracuse University
Agnes Scott College
Arizona State University
Affiliation
LIM College
Yeshiva College
Liberty University
[email protected]
[email protected]
uwc.tamu.edu
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
Session
C.10
E.12
D.5
S.1
G.6, M.3, S.2
C.9
E.10
H.6, I.8
A.8
C.8
B.3
B.8, H.5, SW.2
L.6
C.9
A.8
H.6
C.12
H.6
TS.1, H.1
A.5
D.6, M.1
S.1
D.9, TS.1 F.10
I.3
B.6
A.5, B.13, TS.1, E.10
F.10
L.12
M.1
D.15
M.2
K.12
J.3
I.15
H.15
I.4
F.9, G.8
K.1
INDEX, S
First Name
Sally
Byron
Martin
Marjorie
William
Emily
Julie A.
Christopher
Dariel
Laura
Jasmine Kar
Miriam
Tim
Charles
Dawn
Julie
Kerri
Isabelle
Terese
John
Steven M.
Jennifer L.
Beth
Deaver
Seth
Djana
Mike
Thomas P.
Justin
Michael
Tazmin
Jessica
Aileen
Kathryn
Sam
Sarah
Kyle
Last Name
Stark
Stay
Steger
Stewart
Stewart
Stockton-Brown
Story
Striker
Suarez
Tabor
Tang
Taour
Taylor
Tedder
Teer
Tentler
Thomas
Thompson
Thonus
Thornburg
Tolson
Torreano
Torrison
Traywick
Trenchard
Trofimoff
Trucco
Truesdell
Tucker
Turner
Uddin
Upchurch
Valdes
Valentine
Van Horne
Viehmann
Vitale
[email protected]
[email protected]
Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
Dickinson College
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Madison East High
Black Hills State University
[email protected]
[email protected]
Southwest Early College Campus
[email protected]
Fenwick High School
[email protected]
Northwestern College
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
New Mexico State University
University of Iowa
[email protected]
Anoka-Ramsey Community College [email protected]]
[email protected]
Eastern Illinois University
Fenwick High School
Auburn University
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mount St.Mary's University
Art Institute of Pittsburgh
Fenwick High School
[email protected]
Email
Affiliation
Session
S.1
D.7
L.12
F.4
I.11
S.2
A.4
M.10
M.5
H.14
L.7
S.1
D.12
F.5
K.1
I.11
K.4
H.2
G.6
S.1
G.3
I.2
E.1
A.5, TS.5
B.9
N.5
I.11
E.8, H.4
G.3
I.1
N.8, S.2
K.13
H.13
G.2
H.15
M.3
E.4
INDEX, S—V
First Name
Andrea
Samuel
Sam
Miria
Beth
Mae
Patricia
Sundy
Deborah
Summer
Margaret
Cindy Montgomery
Jessica
Haley
Jennifer
Chase C.
Jennifer
Andrew
Amanda Jo
Charitianne
Lauren
Elizabeth I.
Sharon
Melinda
Julie C.
Arline
Nancy
Sherri
Ryan
Rachel
Brittanie
Helena
Jeremy
Lisa
Olivia
Angela
Last Name
Vittorio
Waddell
Wakefield
Waldrop
Wallace
Walters
Warman
Watanabe
Watson
Wayhan
Weaver
Webb
Weber
Welby
Wells
Whisenhunt
Whitaker
Wieczorek
Wildey
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williams
Wilson
Wilson
Wilson
Wilson
Winans
Wise
Witt
Witter
Witzke
Wiuff
Wolff
Wolfgang-Smith
Woodward
Mercy High School
UNCG
Dickinson College
St. John's University
Hamilton College
LIM College
Whatcom Community College
Whitworth University
Dickinson College
Hamilton College
Edgewood College
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
University of Maine
University of Utah
Missouri State University
Email
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Affiliation
York College of Pennsylvania
Session
N.1
A.13
L.8
S.1
S.1
J.6, K.5
M.5
G.9
S.1
D.14
M.3
F.5
L.11
S.1
D.3, FS.1
J.4, S.1
A.10
K.3
M.10
D.2
H.3
M.11
M.9
C.10
F.12
H.12
L.5
FS.5
J.4, S.1
K.12
B.9
B.2, I.13, S.1
G.10
K.9
M.9
B.14, I.2, S.1
INDEX, V—W
First Name
Lacey
Alex
Monika
Sandra
Vershawn Ashanti
Yecca
Lisa
Meghan
Last Name
Wulf
Wulff
Wysocki
Yannone
Young
Zeng
Zimmerelli
Zingales
Affiliation
The Evergreen State College
University of Iowa
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Email
[email protected]
Session
M.2
D.2
K.3
B.7
C.11
I.3
TS.2
M.8
INDEX, W—Z

program here - International Writing Centers Association

Transcription

Similar documents

University of Nizwa, Oman The Writing Center Peer Tutor Training

A Music and Science Academy

Available at the Collierville Burch Library…

Welcome to Year 9 2015

Spring/Summer 2014 - Partners in English Language Learning

Castori Elementary School - Twin Rivers Unified School District

News letter - Polimiroir

program here - International Writing Centers Association

community handbook - Classical Conversations Cocoa Community