Discusses the experiences of one student as she used her journal writing and the resources of a writing laboratory to adapt her expressive writing to the requirements of academic discourse. (RS)

Presents a heuristic to help writing laboratory directors implement a nonprescriptive, nondirective tutor training program which allows tutors to take an active role in their own training. The heuristic is divided into four parts: establishing rapport, exploring potential, discovering strategies, and on-going self-review. (RS)

Presents a monologue by a writing laboratory director aimed at English department chairs in order to familiarize the "boss" with the writing laboratory, to explain what the laboratory can offer the English department, and to describe how the laboratory works with students. (RS)

Examines the oral interactions between four different undergraduate writers and four different graduate student tutors. Results indicate that the interactions have characteristics of peer and classroom interaction, that they are less clearly oriented than teacher-student conferences, and that they cannot really be considered peer group talk. (RS)

Examines two West Virginia writing centers and finds no significant difference in the writing quality growth of students taught by individualized instruction in writing centers and those taught by conventional classroom instruction. Finds that the writing center programs achieved the same gain at one-half the instructional cost. (RS)

This 83-item bibliography contains articles published in 1987 and 1988 of interest to administrators, staff, and users of writing centers. (RS)

Examines the evolution of the writing center at Queens College City University of New York. Asserts that a sense of community is the most important element of a writing center. (MM)

Proposes a dialogic method of training tutors, based on a learning theory which views the "class" as a conversation, where teacher and learner are indistinguishable. Asserts that where dialogue is lacking, information may be transferred, but little is learned. (MM)

Contrasts the advantages and disadvantages of writing center tutors who are familiar with the subject matter in a given field or discipline with those who are not. Asserts that by being "ignorant" of the subject matter, a tutor forces students to take responsibility for their writing. (MM)

Describes the effects (both positive and negative) personal knowledge about students has on student writing conferences. (MM)

Examines various definitions and pedagogies of critical thinking. Discusses the writing center's role in teaching critical thinking. (MM)

Describes the implementation of a writing across the curriculum program at one university's writing center. Discusses solutions to counter the strains placed on the center by this additional program. (MM)

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.…

Examines some of the difficulties in peer tutoring and points out the dilemma of whether to emphasize the tutor component (apprentice model) or the peer component (colearner model). Offers a solution that incorporates elements from both stages, one that treats tutors developmentally. (NKA)

Describes generic problem-solving model constructed by D. Koberg and J. Bagnall that can be used by writing center tutors and that progresses as follows: (1) accept situation, (2) analyze, (3) define, (4) ideate, (5) select, (6) implement, (7) evaluate. Provides tutors with coherent framework and with way of breaking larger framework down into…