What do writers do with the feedback they receive? While the answer will vary depending on the writer's experience and the rhetorical situation, understanding what writers do can provide important information for course redesign and professional development of tutors and instructors. In this first of two manuscripts, the authors examine how…

Especially in the wake of the recent pandemic, asynchronous consulting has become increasingly central to writing center work. Yet writing center scholarship has little attended to the significant impact writer input can have on asynchronous writer-consultant exchanges. Drawing on asynchronous consultation data collected before and after our 2019…

This is a story of a failed study. In 2007, the authors set out to demonstrate that Kurzweil 3000, an adaptive text-to-speech software program, would help any student revise with its read-aloud function and numerous writing tools. During the course of the study, the authors confronted their misconceptions about students' technology use and…

Suggests pushing students to explore their own knowledge of and instincts about their experiences as they write to any audience. Discusses the "when,""where," and "how" of revision. Discusses limiting scope and focus, adding dialogue and interviews, switching point of view and voice, and transforming research papers and narrative. (PRA)

Argues that encouraging a "dialogue of one" (in which students internalize their reading selves in the act of revision) contributes to reuniting students' academic and cultural selves. Contends that students can learn the language appropriate to the literate community by recognizing that their writing is subject to critical questioning…

Discusses how an art student with mild learning disabilities developed a technique (with her writing center tutor) of rewriting her papers in layers, both vertically and laterally, building her meaning like a painting. (PRA)

Presents an annotated bibliography tracing 20 years of "Writing Center Journal" scholarship covering a variety of issues which include teacher training, critical thinking, writing apprehension, peer tutoring, Internet sources and individual instruction. Contains annotations of all the articles and reviews published in this journal's…

Acknowledges that many basic writing students have few personal experiences that translate into telling examples and effective supports in their writing. Suggests that teachers encourage students to fabricate in their narratives, since such structured lying gives students sufficient objectivity to revise--a significant step toward good writing.…

Reports results of a survey of writing center tutors concerning their attitudes toward computer use. Finds that tutors in the writing center are largely confident in using word processing programs for their own writing needs and that tutors assume the students they tutor will use computers for revision of papers. (RS)

Examines two studies: one that shows that competent to highly competent writers find writing centers beneficial, and the other that shows that faculty continue to think of writing centers as suited to remedial students and surface level corrections. Attempts to glean from these studies important information that could act as a corrective to all…

Reports experiences and observations during a visit to a writing workshop where elementary school students were learning how to revise and edit their compositions. (NKA)

Concentrates on reviewing literature on the use of computers to assist the composing process and the teaching of composing in the writing center. Deals with the following categories of software: (1) general, (2) prewriting, (3) organizing, (4) drafting, (5) revising, and (6) proofreading/copy editing. (SKC)

Shows the advantages of using word processors in freshman composition classes that use the instructional technique of peer evaluation. Points out that the benefits are practical for both evaluators and composers, and suggests how to implement a computerized peer evaluation system. (SKC)

Offers perspectives of four different writing lab personnel, namely: (1) a new peer tutor with writing skills but no formal training in teaching; (2) a graduate teaching assistant in writing with no tutoring experience; (3) an experienced tutor reflecting on what he wished he had been taught; and (4) a director-tutor sharing her lab experience.…