Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 20, No. 2 (2023)

FROM THE EDITORS

Kiara Walker and Kaitlin Passafiume
University of Texas at Austin
praxisuwc@gmail.com

In Praxis issues of the recent past, we (Kiara and  Kaitlin) have aimed to shine a light on the many ways  that writing center work resounds throughout university  life, in and beyond the walls of the center. We have  recognized how the writing center guides students  towards success, enjoining the wider educational system  to follow our lead on many pressing issues like inclusion.  We have celebrated the transformative nature of writing  center work, uncovering how our practices help not only  writers to transform, but how writing center  administrators and faculty alike can evolve through the  work that we do. 

In this issue, we celebrate the micro-influences that  writing center work produces, even as our practices  reach outside of the buildings that house us. The authors  included in this edition echo this sentiment, as  evidenced by their varied qualitative and quantitative  studies. There is one thing each author communicates  invariably, despite the plethora of themes and formats  you will find herein. These practitioners express the  influential nature of writing center work, beginning with  the microcosmic element of the sentence itself. This  fragment of a writer’s work begins its journey on paper,  reverberating on each new level until our purpose is felt  outside of the wider educational institution. Closing the  issue, writing center pedagogy informs prison curricula  as a true testament to the resounding impact of writing  center work. 

In her column “The Art and Craft of Sentence Level Choices,” Michele Cohen kicks off the current  issue as she blurs the line between art and craft. The  author advocates for the micro, exposing LOCs (lower order concerns) as that methodology which can make  artists out of writers. Cohen’s metaphor comparing  sentence construction to ceramics does the work of  placing sentence craft squarely in the artistic realm,  illustrating “the inherent relationship between form and  content.” 

Next, Diane Awad Scrocco widens the lens in her  focus article “What’s Your Plan for the Consultation?  Examining Alignment Between Tutorial Plans and  Consultations Among Writing Tutors Using the  Read/Plan-Ahead Tutoring Method.” In this case study,  Scrocco exposes a tension between consultation agenda  setting and use of the read/plan-ahead method, used  primarily when tutors encounter advanced writing or  unfamiliar topics. She examines the benefits and  drawbacks of each consultation priority, looking at  thirteen separate consultation moments where each  method can be found at work. The author gives due  consideration to both the agenda-setting and read/plan 

ahead strategies, ultimately reminding us that writers  should unwaveringly be the center of every consultation  choice that a tutor makes. 

In “Faculty Writing Groups for Writing Center  Professionals: Rethinking Scholarly Productivity,” the  authors take their experiences as writing center  professionals into a writing group. Through this group,  authors Kara Poe Alexander, Erin M. Andersen, Julia  Bleakney, and Jennifer Smith Daniel come to better  understand their own approaches and possibilities when  considering scholarly work. The authors’ insights in  three areas of productivity—scholarly and intellectual,  professionalization and mentoring, and social  support—are of use for other writing center  professionals making the case about the value of their  work that may not fit into common notions of scholarly  productivity.  

Kelle Alden follows in “A Model for Infusing a  Creative Writing Classroom with Writing Center  Pedagogy,” empowering the very methodology that  fuels our centers to inspire greater scholarly  collaborations. The author applies writing center theory  using statistical data in an unaffiliated writing class,  showing one example of how our discoveries can  benefit the institution beyond the wring center itself. 

Bhattarai et al follow, backing farther away from the  center’s walls as they present “Reading the Online  Writing Center: The Affordances and Constraints of  WCOnline.” This focus on virtual practice is timely,  considering an educational shift to incorporate  technology and answer demands for multidimensional  curriculum. Prastistha Bhattarai, Aaron Colton, Eun-hae  Kim, Amber Manning, Eliana Schoenberg, and Xuanyu  Zhou highlight the ways in which pandemic trauma  forced educators to catch up to the demands of a digital  society. In much the same way that pen-and-paper  academia values a book review, these authors offer  “critical digital pedagogy,” creating a guideline for the  oft discussed WCOnline. This collective employs an  analytical approach to the platform’s benefits and  shortcomings, ultimately suggesting best practices to maximize this online tool’s usefulness for writing center  work. 

Next in “What Our Tutors Know: The Advantages  of Small Campus Tutoring Centers,” Ana Wetzl, Mahli  Mechenbier, and Pam Lieske take us to a set of regional  campuses in Ohio, arguing for the value of writing  centers in these spaces in response to rise of eTutoring.  By surveying tutors at the featured regional campuses,  the authors gain insight into the communities of practice  developed there and the possibilities of on-campus  tutoring that are not likely to be reproduced in  eTutoring spaces and practices. Based on their survey,  the authors advocate for preserving and maintaining  writing centers on regional campuses, arguing for the  benefits that can be had in communities of practice present in local, face-to-face interactions. 

Julie Wilson closes our issue by looking at writing  center collaborative work in an often-disregarded space  for intellectual and educational experiences. In  “Advocates for Education in Prison-Based Writing  Centers,” Wilson presents her findings from developing a writing studio in a women’s prison. By using a  qualitative action research design, Wilson was able to  design and redesign a supportive writing center that  took into consideration student experience and the  knowledge of system impacted scholars. Based on the  study, Wilson encourages writing center practitioners to  genuinely seek out, center, and respond to student advocacy and students’ ability to recognize their own  needs. 

In the spirit of employing our work outside the  writing center and ushering in new practices and  policies, it is with excitement for the future that we bid  goodbye to our co-editor Kaitlin Passafiume, as she  transitions into a new role. In this next phase, she will  undoubtedly rely on what writing center practice has  taught her even as she works to promote decolonizing  versions of democracy in Latin America. She signs off  this chapter, humbled by the potency of writing theory  and policy to transcend sentence creation, the walls of  our centers, our educational institutions, and our  nations’ boundaries, leaving us with the following  message: 

“The past two years have served to etch the value  of writing center work beyond merely helping writers  help themselves. The University Writing Center at UT  and our premier journal Praxis have given me a greater  purpose in academia, and the diverse roles I have been  able to play have afforded me a complexity that shall  shape my future career path. Each author and  collaborator have taught me new applications for our  work, and I am forever grateful for your continued contributions, even as we continue to tap away and toss  new thoughts into the writing arena.”