Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 23, No. 3 (2026)

From Tutoring to Teaching: Course-Embedded Tutoring as Pre-Teaching Pedagogy

Corinna Cape
Fordham University
ccape2@fordham.edu

Uttara Rangarajan
Fordham University
urangarajan@fordham.edu


After a semester working as a course-embedded tutor (CET) at our private R2 university, our colleague Sam was struck by the similarities between course-embedded tutoring and teaching. As a graduate student worker with experience as an instructor of record, Sam was well-positioned to recognize the logical continuities that exist between the role of a CET and that of an instructor. Whereas one-on-one tutoring sessions ask CETs to respond to an individual student’s goals, both CETs and instructors must balance the needs of an individual and the needs of the group. Sam’s insights helped us—fellow graduate students with leadership experience at our university writing center—interrogate the continuum along which tutoring and teaching exist. 

As writing center (WC) leaders in the spring of 2024, we developed a course-embedded tutoring program tailored to the needs of instructors and students in individual courses. An expanded version of our program ran as a pilot the following summer, and the program continues to serve our WC today. Instructors selected for the program work closely with a WC tutor who offers dedicated support in the form of in-class presentations, customized materials, and group and individual tutoring sessions. For the pilot, we received IRB approval to interview students, tutors, and instructors about their experiences working together. We were particularly interested in how the presence of embedded tutors affected classroom dynamics, and how sustained work with a specific class prepared the tutor for professional teaching opportunities in the future. Interviews with tutors like Sam allowed us to further develop our thoughts concerning the relationship between CET tutoring and classroom instruction. 

In what follows, we reflect on our experience piloting a CET program in order to identify continuities between tutoring and teaching, and offer suggestions for other writing center administrators interested in situating tutoring as “pre-teaching” training. As graduate tutors who have gone on to become composition instructors, we often rely on our own tutoring experiences to fill gaps in our teaching practice. This column considers how such training might look in practice and to inspire conversations about CET tutoring as a pathway to the writing classroom. 

We view writing center leadership teams and tutors as “intermediaries” who are able to circumvent traditional classroom power dynamics. Because tutors work with students individually, they can achieve a level of openness and detail with students that is rarely replicated between student and instructor (Titus et al.) Therefore, the skills tutors build as CETs can help them become instructors more attuned to individual student needs, desires, and modes of learning—thus disrupting the aforementioned classroom power dynamics. Building such awareness can serve them in their existing tutor roles and may assist them on their way to becoming instructors. We imagine that CET training framed as pre-teaching would be meaningful for both graduate and undergraduate tutors interested in classroom teaching or group writing instruction.

Existing scholarship addresses the efficacy of CET programs, the dynamic and ambivalent role of CET tutors (Ristow and Dickinson; Webster and Hansen), and the overlapping power relationships embedded in CET models (Raica-Klotz et al.). However, there has been little attention paid to the teaching skills that form a part of the skillset of a successful CET tutor. This column offers options for imagining tutoring as a meaningful professional development experience for all kinds of teachers-to-be.

In their 2017 study of undergraduate and graduate tutor identities, Jennifer Grouling and Elisabeth H. Buck explored the paths tutors take to arrive at writing center work. The authors examined how their WC experience structures a tutor’s professional relationship to educating and “affects the sense of community in the writing center” (50). Grouling and Buck conclude that despite their “seemingly higher professional status,” graduate students who were assigned to work at the WC were less likely to view writing center work as part of their professional self-identity, as compared to “self-selected undergraduates” (50). Buck and Grouling found that one of the causes of discontent amongst graduate students assigned to work at the WC was the inability to find a meaningful connection between tutoring and teaching. By consciously developing a CET program that situates embedded tutoring as pre-teaching pedagogy, WCs could cultivate a connection between tutoring and teaching and contribute to the professional development goals of graduate tutors.


Aligning Course-Embedded Tutoring
to Writing Center Strengths

Through our interviews with tutors and observations of the pilot program, we determined there are three areas in which the writing center is uniquely positioned to train future teachers. 

Practical instruction in specific academic writing skills

Writing tutors possess expertise that lend themselves to effective classroom instruction. For instance, many writing centers offer handouts explaining academic writing concepts. At our institution, tutors have the opportunity to help design these handouts and often use them to lead mini-workshops before group participation sessions. CET training provides a natural opportunity to expand these workshop offerings in ways that benefit both the embedded course and the tutor’s professional development. CET training aims to ease the transition from one-to-one tutoring to classroom-based work and to provide ample support as tutors embark on new professional tasks. Whether WCs already offer mini-workshops or not, giving CET tutors the opportunity to tailor materials in the resource bank to specific classes helps them practice course design through discrete tasks. 

We also recommend that tutors have an opportunity to lead part of the class at some point in the semester. Classroom experience offers tutors the chance to bring their technical knowledge of writing and their experience in one-on-one sessions to a group environment. Preparing class materials helps tutors develop a framework for engaging writing pedagogy with a larger group. Delivering in-class writing instruction encourages them to hone the oratorical, interactive, and observational techniques that are key to teaching composition. All the documents generated around these sessions will add to the WC’s repertoire of materials as well as to the tutor’s future teaching portfolio.

Learning through mentorship

We view mentorship as a central component of CET training. Because all writing center administrators, composition instructors, and course-embedded tutors bring their own considerations to embedded tutoring, we arranged for prospective CET tutors to meet with all three parties in order to familiarize themselves with the composition classroom in its various aspects. 

Because WC leadership and WC tutors exist outside the student-professor paradigm, mentorship from WC leaders can offer tutors unique insight into classroom dynamics. Writing centers place focus on writing tools as opposed to content specialization; our writing center, for example, offers appointments for any type of written assignment. Writing center leaders are therefore especially well-positioned to offer training that emphasizes instructional approaches applicable in many different contexts.

Further, mentorship from instructors shows tutors how composition classes work. This mentorship might involve classroom observations, 1:1 meetings, or email correspondence. Whatever form it takes, Webster and Hansen note that “intentionally making room for faculty-tutor conversations during the collaboration dramatically improves faculty-tutor integration” (54). The WC leadership team can again act as useful intermediaries by helping CETs prepare for formal interactions with instructors, advising them as to what questions they might ask or what to focus on in classroom observations.

A third mentorship approach includes pairing CETs-in-training with active CETs. Pairing may involve a trainee shadowing a working tutor during a CET presentation or interviewing a current tutor about their experiences. Scholar Jane Van Slembrouck notes that in peer-to-peer pairings, tutors were enthusiastic about the lack of “power differential” and gained insight from the reciprocal mandate to both observe and be observed. As Van Slembrouck notes, observing a more seasoned tutor not only gives CETs-in-training new skills, but “prompts self-evaluation” (n.p.). Conversely, being observed reminds experienced tutors that they are part of a larger ecosystem of writing specialists, even if they tend to work in isolation.

Finally, WC leadership might consider asking CETs-in-training to write and workshop their own job descriptions and professional development goals related to careers in writing education. In “All the Best Intentions: Graduate Student Administrative Professional Development in Practice,” Karen Rowan describes such an instance. In the piece, a graduate student administrator (GSA) worked with her director to develop a guide for redistributing labor so that administrative positions could be more manageable for future graduate students. Rowan notes that writing the actual job description gave the GSA and her administrator a chance to dialogue about the duties the position entailed, and that “the process of creating formal job descriptions requires directors and GSAs to articulate what it means to be an administrator in their particular writing centers” (39). Not only do we feel that writing their own job descriptions will help clarify each CET-in-training’s eventual role in the CET classroom, we believe that by doing so, tutors articulate the aims they have for their professional development. From there, the leadership team can tailor the tutor’s experience in pursuit of those goals.

We also recommend that the instructor and tutor meet at the end of the semester to share their reflections. Tutors may ask pedagogical questions about course design, assignment sequences, and learning objectives to understand how a composition course is designed and executed.

Student-centered, individualized approaches to writing

Many future composition instructors at Fordham University begin their graduate assistantships in the writing center. They therefore encounter students as individual learners before conducting group instruction. We encourage CETs-in-training to reflect on their work as one-on-one tutors so that they might carry these meaningful experiences to the composition classroom. 

We also recommend that the WC leadership team offer writing and discussion prompts that can help tutors translate their skill set to the classroom setting. For example: 

  • If a student seems like they’re zoning out during a session, how can you engage them again? How might you modify your approach for students disengaged during group work?

  • What are your favorite strategies during one-on-one tutoring sessions? How could you implement them in a large group setting?

  • How do you think having additional information about the learning objectives of a course will impact your 1:1 tutoring approach with students? 

Metacognitive reflections can help participants develop an approach to course-embedded tutoring; specifically, an approach that acknowledges the affordances built through one-on-one tutoring and CET courses.

Closing Thoughts

When we think of tutoring and college-level writing instruction as contiguous, tutoring becomes a space of pre-teaching pedagogy, rather than professional experience that graduate students see as entirely separate from teaching. 

There was no CET program when we were tutors. But the throughlines between tutoring and teaching were evident to us. Fordham’s writing center has always been closely allied with the writing classroom; During our two years as tutors, we presented mini-workshops to introductory English classes and also designed and led evening workshops alongside other tutors. The WC happily shares supplementary resources with writing instructors in the form of presentations, handouts, and informational pamphlets. Having spent individualized time with students in composition courses who visited the WC, we were able to recognize the diverse ways in which students approach writing tasks and develop writing skills. For instance, we noticed that even when working with very clear writing prompts, first year students often needed help decoding assignment instructions and guidance in building their research plan. Our tutoring experience made us better at designing prompts and teaching research skills. 

We did not have experience leading a college class, however, and we believe we would have benefited from observing seasoned instructors and leading portions of classes as embedded tutors. Working with students under the guidance of an instructor would also have given us the chance to understand the difference between the kind of support a single student needs, and the kind of support appropriate for a group. We strongly believe that CET programs like ours have the potential to generate a more conscientious pedagogy that supplies tutors with the tools to become effective instructors in both secondary schools and institutions of higher education. For this type of transitional pedagogy to develop, there could be no better place than the writing center, where academic support and community come together.

Works Cited

Grouling, Jennifer and Elisabeth H. Buck. “Colleagues, Classmates, and Friends: Graduate Versus Undergraduate Tutor Identities and Professionalization.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, 2017, pp. 50–60. 

Ristow, Ben and Hannah Dickinson. “(Re)Shaping a Curriculum-Based Tutor Preparation Seminar: A Course Design Proposal.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, 2014, pp. 102–107.

Rowan, Karen. “All the Best Intentions: Graduate Student Administrative Professional Development in Practice.” Writing Center Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, 2009, pp. 11–48.

Titus, Megan L., Jenny L. Scudder, Josephine R. Boyle and Alison Sudol. “Dialoging a Successful Pedagogy for Embedded Tutors.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, 2014, pp. 15–20. 

Webster, Kelly and Jake Hansen. “Vast Potential, Uneven Results: Unraveling the Factors that Influence Course-Embedded Tutoring Success.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, 2014, pp. 51–56.

Raica-Klotz, Helen, Christopher Giroux, Zach Gibson, Kramer Stoneman, Christina Montgomery, Crystal Brinson, Taeler Singleton and Ka Vang. “‘Developing Writers’: The Multiple Identities of an Embedded Tutor in the Developmental Writing Classroom.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, 2014, pp. 21–26. 

Van Slembrouck, Jane. “Watch and Learn: Peer Evaluation and Tutoring Pedagogy.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–6.