Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 22, No. 2 (2025)
Across Times and Spaces: Tutors’ Perspectives on Asynchronous Training Components at a Hispanic-Serving Institution
Amanda M. May
New Mexico Highlands University
amandamay@nmhu.edu
Omolola Ayegboyin
New Mexico Highlands University
oayegboyin@live.nmhu.edu
Rose Gonzales
New Mexico Highlands University
rgonzales19@live.nmhu.edu
Katherine Lundebjerg
New Mexico Highlands University
klundebjerg@live.nmhu.edu
Introduction
In a 2023 Praxis article, Ana Wetzl and colleagues discuss how writing centers serving smaller regional campuses possess advantages over larger tutoring corporations, including a localized model of training that “...is more intimate and individualized than outsourced options. It includes formal training and supervision provided by faculty and ongoing informal training or learning through conversations between and among tutors, tutees, faculty members, and other members of the educational community” (62). Historically, our own writing center—located at a rural comprehensive institution with multiple campuses—has offered less structured initial training that left many incoming tutors feeling underprepared.
Our institution, New Mexico Highlands University (NMHU), is unique in several capacities. At the time of writing this article, the university is classified as Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) and pursuing a classification as a Native American-Serving Nontribal Institution (NASNTI). Both relate to our student population: 55.4% of our students identify as Hispanic, and about 8.5% identify as Indigenous (10% is required for NASNTI status). Additionally, our university’s graduate student population consists largely of international students from African nations like Nigeria, Ghana, and Cameroon. While our tutors bring a wealth of knowledges, languages, cultures, and experiences with them, many lack familiarity with American higher education contexts and writing centers.
Responding to the institution’s need for well-trained tutors capable of supporting undergraduate and graduate writers across disciplines, and to better support incoming tutors’ needs for more knowledge of writing center pedagogies, this article considers localized training that combines asynchronous modules (Allison; Estes and Martina; Greer et al.) and practice sessions. Our article follows Amanda Greenwell and colleagues, whose 2020 Praxis article incorporates multiple voices and perspectives to explore training. To that end, our article is multivocal in nature: writing in their own voices, tutors present narratives focused on four factors: background, differences from other training contexts, how the training prepared them, and what knowledge can only be learned through experience. This article contributes to ongoing conversations about tutor preparation not only by framing tutors’ experiences as valuable in the context of training but also by centralizing our own institutional context—a local, rural, comprehensive HSI striving for NASNTI status—as a site for knowledge-making about tutor training.
Literature Review
Writing center training varies by institution. On-site models include approaches such as for-credit courses (Buck) and intensive nine-day training (Bell). Considerations and focuses for developing training are, much like writing center work more broadly, shaped by context. Elisabeth Buck, in creating a for-credit course, highlights three needs: incentivizing the course, strategically recruiting tutors, and aligning the schedules of new and returning tutors to form mentorship. While Meredith McCarrol underscores the need to balance theory and practice, other scholars describe potential focuses on Writing Across the Curriculum and Writing in the Disciplines (Medvecky), adapting an organization’s core values to a local context (Cahil et al.), or utilizing an inquiry-based approach (Burelle and Thompson 242). Other writing centers “focus on creating a welcoming and safe space for writers and building a sense of belonging” (Dobson 13). Participants in writing center training also engage in creating texts, such as literacy narratives (Howard 3; McCarrol) and reflections (Allison 37; Behrens and Funt; Buck; Estes and Martina; Howard 5-6).
Previous writing center scholars have underscored the numerous benefits of asynchronous writing center training. Both Estes and Martina and Gallagher and Maxfield describe training for tutors that relies on self-paced, self-guided systems, but where Gallagher and Maxfield focus on read-and-respond activities, Estes and Martina highlight their use of modules that each include “links to articles, excerpts from sample tutoring sessions, mini-quizzes or interactive elements, and questions for discussion or reflection” (2). Allison additionally describes his modular training model, which includes questions, theoretical readings, application, a reflection/bridge, and an assessment to close the loop (37). Writing center researchers have also identified training potentials for interactive Wikis (Estes and Martina 5), but no further research has been conducted.
Writing center scholarship also points to hybrid training models that incorporate face-to-face components while relying primarily on modules (Greer et al.). This training, unlike classroom-based training, allows tutors to access the material as a refresher and supports new tutors in its flexibility. Goals and focuses are relevant to consider when developing asynchronous training, and while the training is delivered primarily online, each component is informed by our institutional context, extending the importance of context at smaller institutions that Ana Wetzl and colleagues discuss at length. Although they focus on tutor rapport at a regional institution, our article extends this consideration to tutor training, especially in the context of tutors who may be less familiar with our institutional context as incoming international students.
Regardless of modality, training and professional development tend to be ongoing and important for both writing program administrators (Charlton) and writing center tutors (Bell; Cahil et al.; Gallagher and Maxfield). Like many aspects of writing center work, Elisabeth Buck notes that training should be assessed to continue meeting the needs of incoming tutors, and Greenwell et al. additionally highlight the importance of revisions over time. As tutors develop, they can contribute through revising and developing new materials, either for ongoing training (Hughes) or modules (Estes and Martina 2). Estes and Martina point out that inviting tutors to contribute materials “allows [them] to become active participants in designing their own training experiences” (2-3). Our initial training takes place online, and our ongoing training continues through biweekly meetings, which provide additional opportunities to build community and develop professionally.
Training Development and Structure: Amanda M. May
To strengthen incoming tutors’ knowledge and practice, I began developing our asynchronous training in Summer 2023 and recruited Nicole Kirby, an English graduate student with undergraduate experience at our institution, to help. We first met and discussed what components could better support incoming tutors’ writing center knowledge and practice. Keeping in mind the importance of institutional knowledge, particularly at regional campuses (Wezel et al.), and similar to Caswell et al.’s suggestion to ask what knowledge writers need when they visit the center (198), I relied on a guiding question: What knowledge do incoming tutors need to best support writers at our institution? Together, we developed a structure for the modules and selected topics. I then drafted the PowerPoints, which Nicole provided feedback on. Because I had access to a quiet space and a quality microphone, I also recorded videos using Zoom with captions. Nicole also helped populate the shell in Brightspace, our institution’s LMS, and developed pre-activities and quizzes. In total, our training offers eleven modules divided into four weeks; each aims to provide tutors in training with new writing center knowledge or tools, and each contains a list of goals for learning, an opening reflection, a 15- to 25-minute video, and a closing quiz. A full list of modules and objectives can be found in the Appendix.
During training, tutors read our handbook, which relies extensively on writing center scholarship and aims to balance theory and practice, as McCarrol advocates for. Both GAs and hourly tutors complete training in their first four weeks and begin tutoring in week three after having completed three mock sessions. Our tutors speak about these mock sessions and other training components in their own voices, which this article seeks to value by preserving their narratives in their entirety.
Narrative Accounts
To better understand how this training impacted incoming tutors, three tutors present their narratives about their experiences with the training. As Alanna Bitzel et al. point out, tutors “bring their own skill sets, academic areas of interest, and life experiences to their work, consulting or otherwise” (1). These three tutors offer unique perspectives; at the time of writing this article, Omolola was a first-semester international student with a bachelor’s degree in English, Rose completed her undergraduate degree in special education in 2023, and Katie was an undergraduate studying criminal justice. I selected these tutors because all three completed the training the first semester it was offered and because they offer three unique perspectives shaped by their backgrounds and familiarity or unfamiliarity with the institution.
Our methods for developing the questions were heavily collaborative and unfolded over two meetings. In the first, the director instructed tutors to generate questions on their own before our next meeting. At the following meeting, we collectively gathered and reviewed the list of questions, then refined them and selected the four that we felt were most relevant to the narratives:
What is your background?
How is this training different than training in your previous professional contexts?
What happened in the training, and how has this training made you feel more prepared and confident in your writing center work?
What can you only learn in a writing center session?
Adapting to Change: Navigating Asynchronous Training in the Writing Center and Beyond: Omolola Ayegboyin
In the vast educational landscape of Nigeria, where I embarked on my academic journey, the foundational principles of education rested upon face-to-face interactions with teachers and peers within physical classrooms. The concept of asynchronous training was, at that point, a foreign entity, but that phenomenon would come to dominate my educational experience in ways I could not have anticipated.
Then came the year 2020 – a year that brought about a seismic shift within the realm of education. The pandemic’s relentless grip forced people indoors, yet the pursuit of knowledge and growth remained undeterred. Asynchronous and synchronous learning emerged as the answer to this unprecedented challenge, though asynchronous learning was more widely accepted. It marked a paradigm shift that I, like many others, had to embrace, ushering in a new era of learning.
Prior to the pandemic, my encounters with online learning were sporadic. However, necessity has a way of catalyzing change. I found myself enrolling in online courses and participating in work-related training through virtual platforms. The transition from traditional classroom learning to asynchronous training presented a formidable adjustment period. It was a shift in my educational journey that demanded I alter the way I processed information.
As a student within the English department, I was afforded a unique opportunity – that of working as a writing tutor in the writing center. This position became the gateway through which I would step into asynchronous training in academic writing support.
The writing center stood as a hub of intellectual exchange where students from diverse backgrounds converged to seek guidance on their writing projects. I vividly recall the day when I received the news from the writing center director that the training for writing tutors would be conducted asynchronously. The announcement filled me with a mixture of excitement and anxiety, for I did not know what to expect from this form of training.
The first step in this asynchronous journey was to complete a series of online modules. These modules served as my introduction to the center's policies, practices, and the expectations placed upon me as a writing tutor. Through them, I acquired the knowledge needed to conduct effective consultations, be they face-to-face, email, or Zoom, and to provide constructive feedback on various types of writing, such as creative writing, theses, fictional and nonfictional stories, and academic papers. The asynchronous nature of the training allowed me to proceed at my own pace, a flexibility that was particularly advantageous given the other academic commitments that I had to juggle.
One module in particular stood out for me. It focused on the nuances of writing center etiquette and the art of building rapport with students during virtual and physical sessions. This module delved into the intricate details of creating a welcoming and non-threatening online and physical environment. The goal was to encourage students to share their work openly, and techniques such as active listening, the use of positive language, and the application of empathetic responses were heavily emphasized. These were the tools we wielded to ensure students felt comfortable during remote and physical sessions.
Moreover, the module included mandatory practice sessions that involved conducting mock consultations with fellow trainees. During these sessions, participants simulated tutoring scenarios to practice and apply the skills learned in the training. The mock consultations provided a hands-on experience, allowing trainees to actively engage in the tutoring process within a controlled and supportive environment. These sessions typically involved one trainee playing the role of the tutor, while the other took on the position of the student seeking assistance. This format aimed to replicate real tutoring scenarios, fostering the development of effective communication, problem-solving, and tutoring techniques. The collaborative nature of the practice sessions encouraged trainees to provide constructive feedback to each other, facilitating a collective learning experience that enhanced their overall preparedness for actual tutoring sessions. These sessions occurred through a variety of mediums, including face-to-face interactions, Zoom meetings, and email correspondence. After each session, we were required to reflect on our performance, assessing our strengths and identifying areas for improvement.
However, the newfound freedom in the asynchronous format came hand in hand with a significant responsibility: self-discipline. In the absence of fixed training hours, effectively managing time became a crucial aspect that rested solely on my shoulders. To navigate this situation, I implemented a structured approach to my schedule. I created a personalized timetable that allocated specific periods for engaging with training modules, participating in practice sessions, and completing associated tasks. Setting realistic and achievable goals within designated time frames allowed me to maintain focus and progress steadily through the training. Additionally, I employed time management tools, such as calendars and reminders, to stay organized and ensure timely completion of training requirements. Cultivating a sense of accountability and adhering to the established schedule played a pivotal role in balancing the autonomy of asynchronous training with the discipline required to meet its objectives.
Upon my successful completion of the asynchronous training, I was well-prepared to embark on my journey as a writing tutor. The transition from training to real consultations in the writing center was remarkably smooth, a testament to the comprehensive nature of the training program. I was now equipped to assist students with a diverse array of writing projects, whether they were working on essays, research papers, or creative compositions.
The experience of asynchronous training in the writing center not only equipped me with valuable skills in virtual communication, online and physical session consultations, but it also underlined the importance of adaptability in today's educational landscape. The training program demonstrated that effective training could be conducted successfully in an asynchronous format, catering to the diverse needs of students with varying schedules and commitments. The seamless shift was particularly evident in the alignment between the training assignments and the actual tasks encountered during consultations. The practical exercises and mock consultations conducted as part of the training closely mirrored the scenarios encountered in real tutoring sessions. For instance, the simulated consultations incorporated diverse writing challenges, ranging from structure and grammar to more nuanced aspects of writing support. This intentional similarity ensured that the skills honed during training seamlessly translated into the live, dynamic environment of the writing center. The transition felt fluid, with the practical experiences gained from the training serving as a robust foundation for confidently addressing the varied needs of students during actual consultations.
Moving forward, my experiences as a writing tutor were enriched by the asynchronous training experience, as I found myself connecting with students from all walks of life. Together, we navigated the intricate landscape of academic writing, shaping it into a realm of creativity and expression. The experience underscored the importance of technology and online resources in providing academic support, a lesson that has become increasingly relevant in the current educational climate.
My journey into asynchronous training at the Writing Center was a fulfilling and enlightening experience. It showcased the potential of flexible, technology-driven training methods while emphasizing the value of community and collaboration in both the virtual and physical learning environments. This experience not only enhanced my skills as a writing tutor but also deepened my appreciation for the evolving landscape of education. It was a chapter of adaptability and growth, one that continues to influence my approach to teaching and learning, leaving an indelible mark on my educational journey.
From Uncertainty to Certainty: How Asynchronous Training Helped Build My Confidence as a Writing Center Tutor: Rose Gonzales
I live in a small rural town and am part of a community with a rich heritage expressed through vibrant celebrations, traditional cuisine, and timeless architecture. The beauty and originality of this rural town have left me with a profound love for the area and its people, so much so that I chose to pursue a career that I could one day use to give back to this small community and help preserve its culture and support its growth. I am an alumna of NMHU and graduated in May of 2023 with my degrees in Special Education and English. Currently, I am working on getting my master’s degree in English with a concentration in literature at NMHU.
My love for teaching has evolved over the years. During my last semester as an undergrad, I was able to work with students with special needs while completing my student teaching at a local elementary school. This experience helped to further develop my passion for teaching and fueled my interest in learning how I could teach students with special needs to master different writing concepts and to have a deeper understanding of literature. All of these wonderful experiences have left me feeling fortunate to attend a university like NMHU, where I could pursue my interests closer to home. This fall, I was offered the opportunity to continue to study English at NMHU while working in the writing center, and it has been a learning experience that has helped me grow as a writer.
The writing center has helped me grow as a writer, in addition to helping other writers feel more confident in their writing. I have experienced success as a tutor in the writing center not only because of my love for teaching and writing but also because of the training I was given during my first week on the job. The training I received before tutoring students was very different from my training in previous workplaces. I have worked for years in retail and food service, and the training I was given for this type of work was primarily on-the-job training, which always left me feeling uncertain about my work responsibilities. In these work environments, understanding was gained by close observation and hands-on experience, along with being mentored by a senior employee. My biggest struggle with on-the-job training was that it always led to information overload. Whenever I started a new job, I was thrown right into working while trying to understand and remember the various rules and regulations set by my employer. When difficult situations would present themselves, I would be left to try and figure out the correct response, which would frequently lead to a large amount of stress and a series of mistakes, some more serious than others. At the NMHU Writing Center, I was given not only hands-on experience but also extensive online asynchronous training that helped me to reflect on the various writing center practices in a low-risk and stress-free environment.
Our training at the NMHU Writing Center began the first week of the semester and it lasted a total of four weeks. With this type of training, we slowly transitioned into tutoring and were able to reflect on many situations that could arise during writing center sessions. Throughout these weeks of training, we completed various forms of reflective writing and quizzes based on videos recorded and uploaded by our writing center director. These videos not only explained the basics of how the NMHU Writing Center operated with its forms and procedures but also gave an in-depth look into what it means to be professional and how to work with writers from various disciplines. Since the NMHU Writing Center works with students from all disciplines, it was important for us as tutors to understand how their essays and projects were usually formatted and what their academic voices may sound like. The asynchronous training we received helped us with interdisciplinary writing and how to approach tutoring sessions with students in various departments. Aside from this, we were also given a chance to reflect on culture and what that looks like in a writing center setting. NMHU is a Hispanic-serving institution that also has a population of students from other countries outside of the United States. During training, we thought about culture and how it influences different perspectives and voices within writing. Overall, the extensive asynchronous training that I received during the first four weeks of the semester helped me feel more prepared for actual sessions. Since this training was asynchronous, it became a resource that I could always return to if needed. This resource helped me feel more confident because if I ever had a situation where I did not know the answer, I could return to the training modules or our handbook and quickly and accurately make a correct decision regarding any writing center policy or practice.
Many might question how asynchronous training can prepare tutors for in-person training sessions, and it is true that some training can only come from live sessions with a writer. However, the fantastic thing about our center’s online asynchronous training is that it was also skillfully integrated with hands-on training. Starting in our second week, along with our online training modules, we were tasked with scheduling and completing three mock sessions with our co-workers. These mock sessions included an email session where we would look at an essay, provide our feedback, and send it to our writing center director for further assessment. We also got time to practice mock Zoom sessions where we could work with the program and its features, which helped us manage difficult technical issues. Our on-site mock sessions most closely resembled an actual tutoring session. We could work with our co-workers and provide feedback on projects they were working on, which was a valuable experience because each of us brought a unique element to each mock session. One thing about tutoring at a writing center is that all sessions are individual. Writers cycle through with new papers and new ideas, so adjusting to that continuous change is something that can only be learned through experience. Our mock on-site sessions allowed us to practice tutoring in a safe, low-risk environment where learning and gaining experience were prioritized, and because of this, we could jump into real sessions with writers more confidently.
Stabs and Scribbles: Katie Lundebjerg
I became enamored with writing stories once I learned to comprehend the squiggles called letters. I devoured books, poems, stories, and articles with the ferocity of a starving animal. I submitted writing to high school literary magazines, attended creative writing groups, and served as Editor in Chief of my high school’s literary magazine my senior year. I approach teaching with the same passion and zeal. In 2019, I began my coaching career in the sport of fencing at my mentor's suggestion. I teach both the French and Italian styles of sword play to all ages.
Currently, I am in my senior year of an undergraduate degree in criminal justice with a minor in English writing. One of my capstone courses, criminology, required me to visit the writing center during the Spring of 2023. Through frequent email and Zoom sessions, I developed confidence in my writing process and control of language. I use them about once or twice a week. I also meet with the director of the writing center, Dr. May, to work on the novel I began in April of 2023. My previous training was strictly done in person. My training at fast-food places was done in conjunction with the work tasks. I would learn how to perform a task by watching and copying my trainer or doing it with them. When I started coaching, I received similar training. I observed two classes and then took the class as a mock student. I did the drills, the exercises, and served as the ‘example’ for the class. After a few classes, I led parts of the lesson. Finally, I received full control of a class once the Master of Fencing felt I managed the flow of information and my student’s attention well without assistance.
My writing center training followed a more academic, classroom style. We did a pre-activity to engage our brains, watched a lecture, and took a post-quiz or another activity to check for understanding. Mock session exercises were done during the second and third week of training so there was more time in between the theoretical and practical application of tutoring. As a remote tutor, I practiced Zoom and email sessions. For the Zoom sessions, I sent Dr. May a Bookings request for a Zoom session. I met with her and provided feedback on her PowerPoint and a research proposal. For the email sessions, Dr. May sent a copy of her previous writing to review using the Comment’s feature in Microsoft word.
I noticed similarities between this training and my fencing training. Both schools I teach at have a Master of Arms certification track. There are required theory courses and in-person practical hours before taking exams in both schools. Both the French and Italian schools require extensive study of texts written by previous Masters of Fencing. There is a universal language which the Master of Arms must know and utilize while they teach. Due to the sheer volume of information, the theory courses flow much like a college course with take-home assignments and Zoom lectures. The in-person training courses cover how to teach theory to students. We also learn how to structure a group class, how to teach a private lesson, and how to adapt the material to different age groups. In the writing center training, I listened to lectures on tutoring theory and how to adapt teaching strategies for different writers. Next, I conducted mock email and Zoom sessions to apply what I learned. Mock sessions are beneficial, hands-on applications like the in-person hours for my Masters of Arms certification courses.
For the first two weeks of writing center training, I struggled to engage with the training modules. Since I am a kinetic learner, I flounder during lectures or periods of time when I am expected to sit still. This issue affects me in every classroom because I must sit for long periods of time, follow along, and take notes. However, once the mock sessions began, the information presented in the videos clicked. The videos and handbook were handy to review when I got stuck. I had minimal questions for Dr. May when I received feedback on my sessions. My brain processes the act of listening and the act of application as two separate things. I cannot contemplate how to apply auditory information before I practice the application of the subject. Once I began to physically interact with the subject matter, the instructions were easy to apply, and the training breezed by.
During my first email session, I applied Dr. May’s feedback and confidently conveyed my critiques, ideas, and praise to the student. Although I was a bundle of nerves, I never felt stuck during the session, and my approach was solid. So far, I have only conducted one Zoom session this semester. The ability to see my students during the session both helped and hindered me. I spoke freely but was also more distraction prone because I could see them. Juggling notetaking and student engagement while I tutored them proved difficult because of the dynamic nature of Zoom sessions. The session report I wrote, therefore, was less accurate than the email sessions. I can go and review comments on email sessions if I forget information.
There are a few things I could only learn in my sessions. The most important lesson focused on adjusting time management for each student and modality. There are different needs for each paper because of the student’s writing level, the subject matter, and where they are in the writing process. I utilize a visual timer and macro copy-pastes to keep email sessions efficient and focused. Between my two mock Zoom sessions, the requested focus varied depending on the student’s progress and their place within the writing process. Although the skeleton of the sessions was the same, my comments and ideas were different.
I also learned how to maintain confidence and focus regardless of who I tutor. I recently worked with a graduate student on her midterm paper. She requested help with APA formatting and argument presentation. Our Bookings page does not specify who is a graduate or an undergraduate tutor. Although I felt incredible anxiety when I received the Bookings request, I kept the session and decided to trust myself. When I received the student’s draft, I was surprised and relieved that I could offer her feedback on tense and academic writing tone. I also taught her how to consult the APA style guide. Once I sent her my comments, I received a lovely email from the student thanking me for helping her. The training, and my ability to continuously access it, allowed me to provide helpful feedback to a student who is working a degree higher than mine. This format of training, with both theoretical and practical components, helped set me up for success with tutoring.
Discussion
The above three narratives from tutors, presented in their own voices, represent their experiences with the center’s newly developed asynchronous training. Together, these three narratives present valuable insights and tutor perspectives. After briefly discussing trends in perceptions of the training and its connections to other contexts, we highlight three common themes in the narratives: supporting diverse students, the issue of time, and finally knowledge that can only be gained from sessions.
Tutors overall felt positive about the training. Both Omolola and Rose use the word “comprehensive” to describe the modules, which the director developed in response to institutional context. In connection with writing center research, context was not only a consideration but a defining factor of training. Besides shaping the training’s format—asynchronous modules combined with real-time practice sessions rather than an intensive course (Bell) or a for-credit course (Buck)—our institutional context also informed the training’s content, especially the module for interdisciplinary writing. Because writing center training is shaped by the contexts they serve (Bell; Buck; Cahil et al.), bringing the question of what knowledge new tutors need can help each center develop the content as well as format of their training.
Tutors also saw mostly differences between the asynchronous modules and training they had encountered in other contexts. Omolola highlights how the online learning context is fairly new to her but that the pandemic prompted her adaptation, Rose discusses how the modules varied from her in-person training on the job, and Katie highlights how the modules differ from fencing certification courses. Both Omolola and Katie’s narratives additionally underscore the importance of synchronous components. Omolola mentions the training brings value to “community and collaboration in both the virtual and physical learning environments,” notably citing two key writing center values in her narrative, while Katie notes the familiarity she found in the practice sessions, as they resembled her experiences in fencing due to their hands-on format. These practice sessions allowed tutors to learn first-hand what a writing center session tends to look like, helping bridge the gap between theory and practice that McCarroll espouses.
Like existing literature on asynchronous tutoring, the three narratives reference the ability for asynchronous training to fulfill the needs of diverse tutor populations. In the context of training (Allison) and workshops (Towle), digital formats can better support learners’ needs, and parts of the above narratives reflect the modules’ ability to do so. Omolola described our training as “flexible” and “technology-driven,” and Rose nods to our module on interdisciplinary writing, which aims to better prepare tutors to support writers outside of the English department. At the same time, Katie’s narrative points to some limitations involving modular training, particularly in the challenges she faced during week one before the practice sessions began. Although the director designed these modules with subtitles, it is clear from Katie’s comment that there are other considerations. Writing centers considering the implementation of training should therefore consider integrating components that support learners with different approaches to learning and differing needs. Estes and Martina provide a potential solution in their description: integrating more interactive components. This is something we may revise our training to include more of moving forward so that it can better suit individuals who thrive in hands-on environments.
A second factor, time, came up in all three narratives but in different ways. Like research on online training and tutoring, which points to time no longer being a limitation (Allisonb34; Gallagher and Maxfield; Hewett 42), both Omolola and Rose indicate their appreciation for the way the asynchronous modules allow for more flexibility in terms of time commitment; they could access the modules remotely and at any time. Rose additionally points out the advantage of online training providing her with more time to think and reflect. However, Katie and Omolola cite an issue that the literature does not currently cover, specifically in terms of managing time to complete the modules. While time is often presented strictly as an advantage in online venues, particularly asynchronous ones, Katie’s narrative shows that time can also be challenging in asynchronous training settings. Omolola points out similar issues, noting that “the onus of managing time fell squarely on [her] shoulders” in this context. The need for “self-discipline” that Omolola points out underscores that asynchronous training creates some unique challenges.
An additional advantage in time emerges from these three narratives, one not mentioned in literature: the ability to return to previous material. Both Rose and Katie indicate their practice of returning to training components when they were unsure of something, and while Rose mentions only the videos, Katie also indicates her tendency to reference our handbook, especially “when [she] encountered a sticking place in the email session.” Besides serving as initial training, the modules therefore additionally serve as a reference for tutors that they can consult on the job. While tutors can admittedly consult with lecture notes from tutoring courses, this advantage is unique to online settings. Tutoring courses with Zoom components could benefit from posting lectures or in-class discussions as recordings in LMSs, therefore supporting tutor learning beyond the classroom.
Finally, all three tutors noted that some knowledge can only be gained through actual writing center sessions. The director developed this training with the objective of better preparing—not fully preparing—new tutors for writing center sessions, but as these narratives show, learning continues to take place even after initial training. Researchers highlight the importance of ongoing training and professional development in the writing center context (Bell; Cahil et al.; Charlton; Gallagher and Maxfield). However, the narratives represent firsthand how learning continues on-the-job in tutoring sessions with students. Katie specifically points out the ability to adapt and manage time with different writers and different modalities. By bringing this question into considerations of initial training, we can emphasize the learning-by-doing aspect of writing center work.
Collectively, these narratives add dimension to the existing research on writing center training that includes asynchronous components. Their individual perspectives confirm their perceptions of the training’s extensiveness and highlight its value in the context of our local writing center. Notably, Omolola also perceived the writing center values of “community and collaboration” within the initial training structure. These accounts of training experiences together represent how asynchronous training components can help prepare new tutors for sessions but not fully. Even with mock sessions, these tutors felt they could only learn certain things during sessions with actual writers visiting the center, such as adaptability and time management for different students and in multiple tutoring modes. These three narratives also underscore how asynchronous training can support diverse learners and provide flexibility, both presented in writing center literature. However, they also contrast with current descriptions of asynchronous tutoring from the research, particularly in the challenges related to time they highlight. While these narratives present challenges heretofore not mentioned in the research, they also highlight an additional benefit related to time: the availability of training modules as a resource, which is an advantage on-site tutoring tends not to provide. The three accounts provided by tutors show how asynchronous training can provide both benefits and drawbacks to individual learners but ultimately can support tutors in our current context in their initial stages of work.
Conclusions
This article presented three tutors’ narrative experiences with a newly developed and locally rooted initial training composed of asynchronous modules and real-time practice sessions with other tutors. The narratives were keyed to four questions: background, differences in training from other contexts, training components and preparation, and finally knowledge that can only be learned through experience. The three tutors presenting their experiences, Omolola, Rose, and Katie, differ in culture and educational background, yet they are all connected by their experiences as first-semester tutors undergoing initial training. The stories they present show how the training differed from other contexts, as well as how it prepared and did not fully prepare them for writing center sessions. Together, their stories contribute to—and complicate—current writing center understandings of asynchronous training components: while these tutors found value in the flexibility offered by our modules and in their availability as a resource, these three tutors also indicated challenges like time management. This knowledge can be valuable for writing centers developing or reconsidering their training, as they underscore the role of background experiences and approaches to learning in tutor perceptions of training. Writing centers can additionally learn the potential values of—and challenges posed—by asynchronous training components from tutors’ perspectives at our Hispanic Serving Institution. In presenting these narratives, the tutors and I seek to value tutors’ narrative accounts, perspectives, and voices. Further, we together seek to position HSIs as valuable contexts for making knowledge about writing center practice and training. As the institution changes, we can continue collecting narrative accounts from tutors and expand our consideration to incorporate tutoring reflections, a recent revision to our current training practices. Both could provide additional insight into how these training approaches support tutors at our institution.
Works Cited
Allison, Fallon N. “Modular Training for Professional Writing Center Consultants.” Redefining Roles: The Professional, Faculty, and Graduate Consultant’s Guie to Writing Centers, edited by Megan Swihardt Jewell and Joseph Cheatle, USU Press, 2021, 31-43.
Behrens, Vicki, and Alex Funt. “Investing in Graduate Tutor Training: A Sustained Approach.” Redefining Roles: The Professional, Faculty, and Graduate Consultant’s Guie to Writing Centers, edited by Megan Swihardt Jewell and Joseph Cheatle, USU Press, 2021, 204-215.
Bell, Kathryn. “Our Professional Descendants: Preparing Graduate Writing Consultants.” How We Teach Tutors, edited by Karen Gabrielle Johnson, Ted Roggenbuck, and Crystal Conzo, 2019. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/wln/dec1/Bell.html.
Bitzel, Alanna, et al. “Professional Development at the UWC: Three Personal Experiences.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, 2009, 1-7. http://www.praxisuwc.com/bitzel-et-al-71.
Buck, Elisabeth H. “From CRLA to For-Credit Course: The New Director's Guide to Assessing Tutor Education.” How We Teach Tutors, edited by Karen Gabrielle Johnson, Ted Roggenbuck, and Crystal Conzo, 2019. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/wln/dec1/Buck.html.
Burelle, Megan Boeshart and Meaghan Thompson. “An Inquiry-Based Approach for Customizing Training for Graduate Student Tutors.” Redefining Roles: The Professional, Faculty, and Graduate Consultant’s Guie to Writing Centers, edited by Megan Swihardt Jewell and Joseph Cheatle, USU Press, 2021, 241-252.
Cahil, Lisa, et al. “Developing Core Principles for Tutor Education.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, vol. 42, no. 2, 2017, 10-18.
Caswell, Nikki, et al. The Working Lives of Writing Center Directors. Utah State University Press, 2017.
Charlton, Jonikka. “The Future of WPA Professionalization: A 2007 Survey.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, Fall 2009. http://www.praxisuwc.com/charlton-71.
Dobson, Joe. “Fostering a Sense of Belonging in a Graduate Writing Center.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, vol. 48, no. 1, Sept. 2023, pp. 11-19.
Estes, Sharon, and Alexis Martina. “Taking Tutor Training Online.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, vol. 35, no. 3-4, 2010, pp. 1-6. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/wln/v35/35.3-4.pdf. Accessed 6 Oct. 2023.
Gallagher, Daniel, and Aimee Maxfield. “Learning Online to Tutor Online.” How We Teach Tutors, edited by Karen Gabrielle Johnson, Ted Roggenbuck, and Crystal Conzo, 2019. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/wln/dec1/GallagherMaxfield.html.
Greenwell, Amanda M., et al. “Reading in the Writing Center: Tutor Education and Praxis.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, 2020. https://www.praxisuwc.com/172-greenwelletal.
Greer, Michaela, et al. “Educating a Large Writing and Communication Center Staff through Online Blackboard Learning Modules: Planning, Implementation, and Assessment.” The Peer Review, vol. 3, no. 2, 2020. https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-3-2/educating-a-large-writing-and-communication-center-staff-through-online-blackboard-learning-modules-planning-implementation-and-assessment/.
Hewett, Beth L. The Online Writing Conference: A Guide for Teachers and Tutors. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010.
Howard, Jeffrey G. “Fostering Reflection and Empathy: Narratives as Pedagogical Tools in Writing Consultation Preparation.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, vol. 48, no. 1, Sept. 2023, pp. 3-8.
Hughes, Bradley. “The Tutoring Corona: New Perspectives on Professional Development for Tutors.” Another Word: From the Writing Center of University of Wisconsin-Madison, Sept. 5, 2017. https://dept.writing.wisc.edu/blog/the-tutoring-corona-new-perspectives-on-professional-development-for-tutors/. Accessed 6 October 2023.
McCarrol, Meredith. “Making Tutoring Strange: The Pedagogical Aims of Tutor Training.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 14, no. 3, 2017. http://www.praxisuwc.com/mccarroll.
Medvecky, Craig. “Enter the Dragon: Graduate Tutor Education in the Hall of Mirrors.” How We Teach Tutors, edited by Karen Gabrielle Johnson, Ted Roggenbuck, and Crystal Conzo, 2019. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/wln/dec1/Medvecky.html.
Towle, Beth. “From In-Class to Online: Developing Asynchronous and Hybrid Writing Center Workshops.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, vol. 46, no. 6-7, 2022, pp. 11-18.
Wetzl, Ana, et al. “What Our Tutors Know: The Advantage of Small Campus Tutoring Centers.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, 2023, pp. 62-73. https://www.praxisuwc.com/202-wetzl-et-al.
Appendix: List of Modules and Mock Sessions
Week 1
Module 1-1: Welcome to the [Institution] Writing Center
Define what a writing center can be.
Understand the mission and history of NMHU's writing center.
Learn the five driving principles of writing center work.
Identify the kinds of work they will be doing within the center.
Module 1-2: Basic Tutoring Approaches
Understand the basic steps of a face-to-face tutoring session.
Differentiate between tutoring and proofreading.
Understand the forms used to document writing center sessions.
Module 1-3: Writing Center Professionalism and Front Desk Procedures
Understand and apply principles of professionalism within the NMHU Writing Center.
Learn why the front desk is an important writing center space.
Describe some common duties associated with the front desk.
Understand how to access the writing center e-mail.
Understand how to check and respond to voicemails.
Module 1-4: Introduction to Writing Center Technologies
Learn how to access the writing center Zoom.
Describe some functionalities of Zoom that help tutoring.
Learn how to access and use the comment tool in Word.
Understand how online tutoring is similar to and different from face-to-face sessions.
Week 2
Module 2-1: Additional In-Person Tutoring Tips
Understand and define rapport-building.
Develop strategies for building rapport with writers visiting the center.
Use strategies to get the writer engaged in sessions.
Module 2-2: Additional Tips for Online Tutoring: Zoom and E-mail
Differentiate between synchronous and asynchronous sessions and approaches.
Learn how to adapt the basic session structure to Zoom and e-mail sessions.
Develop strategies for troubleshooting technological issues during online sessions.
Understand and apply effective tutoring approaches in online settings.
Module 2-3: The Importance of Reflection
Define reflective writing.
Apply your current writing knowledge to reflective writing.
Understand why it is important to complete weekly reflections while working at the writing center.
Three mock sessions (one in-person, one Zoom, one e-mail), plus reflections.
Week 3
Module 3-1: Advanced Tutoring Techniques: Special Cases
Expand knowledge of NMHU's student population.
Understand a variety of potential writing center situations.
Develop strategies for adapting current tutoring practices to different students and sessions.
Module 3-2: Tutoring Writing in Different Disciplines
Understand how to identify characteristics of disciplinary writing.
Differentiate between writing in your discipline (literature, creative writing, linguistics/composition) and other disciplines (e.g., sociology, criminology, etc.).
Develop strategies to increase writers’ awareness of disciplinary differences in writing style during sessions.
Three mock sessions (one in-person, one Zoom, one e-mail), plus reflections.
Week 4
Module 4-1: Balancing Praise with Constructive Criticism
Understand the importance of positive feedback during all modalities of writing center sessions.
Develop approaches to giving positive feedback.
Adapt these approaches to both synchronous and asynchronous online settings.
Module 4-2: Adapting Tutoring Work to the Classroom
Recognize how working with writers individually can help them succeed in classroom settings.
Identify ways they can build approaches to classroom teaching through writing center work.
Understand what the writing center can teach about writing and what knowledge about teaching may be missing.