KEYWORDS

in-person tutoring; synchronous online tutoring; scaffolding feedback/approaches; listening skills/rhetorical listening; tutoring session logistics; prewriting/brainstorming; global/higher-order/higher gravity concerns; writing in the disciplines/writing across the curriculum

ABSTRACT

This training for novice tutors uses a flowchart heuristic to familiarize writing tutors with the process of establishing a consultation conversation with a writer from any discipline when introduced to a project that is new to the tutor. While leaving room for the writer to take agency on the direction of the conversation, the flowchart models a process that prioritizes higher order concerns to ensure the formal requirements or expectations of the assignment or overall textual genre are met before focusing on other aspects like mechanical accuracy. The flowchart heuristic is accompanied by reflective questions for discussion and facilitation of meta-cognition.

CONTENTS

TRAINING DETAILS

LESSON OVERVIEW

Note: This lesson plan uses the term “tutor” to refer to the person providing a writing consultation and “writer” to refer to the person receiving it. Anyone employing this lesson in their center context should feel free to adjust this terminology to what their team is most familiar with (e.g. “student,” “advisor,” “consultant”).

This lesson provides a flowchart activity, based in minimalist/non-directive tutoring (Brooks, 1991), that is aimed at familiarizing novice tutors with the context of establishing a new project— a project that the tutor has not seen or worked on before—with a new or returning writer in any discipline or genre. At its core, this Flowchart Heuristic offers tutors pathways to ask writers about the trifecta of higher order requirements of their specific project or assignment: instructor-, discipline-, and genre-specific essential structural and content choices, such as sections, use of a thesis statement, or incorporation of sources. In cases where writers are unsure about these, the Flowchart Heuristic offers strategies for shared research into these requirements. Thus, the Flowchart Heuristic emphasizes that tutors need not be experts in writing in the disciplines, circumventing the issue of training tutors in writing in specific disciplines (Dinitz & Harrington, 2014, Hubbuch, 1988) and upholding the writing center tradition of avoiding direct instruction (Nordlof, 2014, p. 48). Simultaneously, it encourages conversations that help writers understand that “good writing” is not necessarily just mechanically and stylistically well-executed, but also requires an understanding of required textual elements according to their project’s context (Carter, 2007, p. 408).

While writers often come into academic writing centers looking for mechanical correction or copy-editing (North, 1984) or asking for a general “read through” with no specific agenda, within the framework of minimalist/non-directive tutoring and beyond, it is advisable to begin a tutoring session with a focus on “higher order concerns” (HOCs)/”global concerns,” including thesis, purpose, and overall organization and structure, before turning to “lower order concerns” (LOCS)/”local concerns,” such as grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation (Cross & Catchings, 2018; “later order concerns” in Gillespie & Lerner, 2000).

Triaging revision needs according to higher order and lower order concerns has both practical and pedagogical advantages. Firstly, from a practical perspective, it is more efficient to focus on higher order concerns, such as structural and organizational expectations of the genre and discipline, first, as passages of text may need to be removed or drastically revised; if lower order concerns, such as spelling and punctuation, were revised first, the passages addressed may yet be removed from the full draft. Secondly, from a pedagogical perspective, addressing higher order concerns with writers promotes, as mentioned above, a higher awareness of textual features associated with writing in the disciplines and for specific purposes (Carter, 2007, p. 408).

Writing center trainers should feel free to employ this heuristic in their training environments as they see fit. Ideally, they would introduce it to novice tutors in an in-person setting and group environment where it may be followed by role-playing activities. However, depending on the respective Center’s practices and infrastructure, it may also be used in synchronous online settings or, if asynchronous training is an established practice, as part of such training, but with a prepared introduction that ensures trainees understand that the flowchart should not be seen as prescriptive.

While the flowchart may be used by tutors in an actual consultation session as a “cheat-sheet,” template, or backup plan—to boost confidence in novice tutors, or for note-taking purposes—the principal intention is to use it in tutor training. The text introduced in the flowchart should never be used as a rigid, prescriptive script that replaces an actual, organic conversation between writer and tutor. A discussion of corresponding reflection questions aims to ensure tutors understand the need for organic conversation and allows for meta-cognition (Ambrose et al., 2010).

LEARNING OUTCOMES/OBJECTIVES

The lesson aims to equip novice tutors with possible pathways of steering conversations when a writer brings in a project that the tutor has not seen before: a project new to the tutor, possibly in a discipline or genre in which the tutor is not an expert. In addition, the lesson offers a more general preparation for novice tutors by incorporating various possible consultation scenarios, which may foster tutor confidence and preparedness by illustrating that they do not need to be a subject-matter expert, but primarily a conversation guide to uncover necessary information about assignment, discipline, and genre requirements.

INSTRUCTIONAL PLAN

Note: The lesson plan is kept relatively vague with various options for application in different training environments, such as in-person, in a group, synchronously, or asynchronously online.

PRE-WORK

This should not be the first lesson novice tutors are exposed to in training. They should have some familiarity with establishing rapport with a writer, and, particularly, the respective writing center’s general practices–for instance, a focus on collaborative tutoring; minimalist or non-directive tutoring; scaffolding; or any other styles–to align with established policies, philosophies, and frameworks. Where centers align with minimalist/non-directive practices, it might be of value to assign Brooks’ (1991) “Minimalist Tutoring” to tutors before this session. A general understanding of Higher Order Concerns is required, and Purdue OWL’s (n.d.) “Higher Order Concerns (HOCs) and Lower Order Concerns (LOCs)” may be assigned as pre-session introduction.

BODY OF LESSON

This section of the lesson plan presents the main body of the lesson, which consists of a trainer introduction of the Flowchart Heuristic, communal time spent in direct engagement with the Flowchart Heuristic and in a reflective discussion, and a brief conclusion wrapping up the lesson. The lesson plan suggests percentages of how much of the time available for this lesson could be spent on each heading/section of the main lesson. These are approximate and need to be concretely planned to fit the time allotted and specific center context. Additionally, the trainer should account for potential interjections, such as requests for clarifications or other comments, that will require an ad hoc pivoting within a live training session.

Trainer Introduction of Flowchart Heuristic

This activity takes approximately 15% of lesson time, e.g. 20 of 120 minutes.

This section provides an overview of information a trainer should share with tutors at the beginning of this lesson to frame an engagement with the flowchart heuristic. This information is likely shared in the form of a mini-lecture, prior to actively working with the flowchart and participating in a reflective discussion, as well as optional role-playing elements. The trainer should communicate the format of this introduction to the tutor audience, including whether questions can be raised during the introduction, overall session, at the end of sections, or other arrangements to that end.

The trainer introduction for the tutor audience should cover the following content:

• Framing of the flowchart as a heuristic for understanding and practicing different conversations: The trainer should explain the general focus on higher order concerns, in the context of establishing a new project with a writer, that is, a project the tutor has not seen or worked on with the writer before.

• Definition of terminology: The trainer should introduce terms like “higher order concerns”/“global concerns” and “lower order concerns”/“local concerns,” or preferred terminology for these theoretical constructs. The trainer should specify if the respective center employs a specific terminology, and whether the respective center encourages tutors to use this terminology in consultations with writers, or whether it is up to the individual tutor if and how they would want to address these concerns (e.g. with specific terminology or descriptively (as the Flowchart Heuristic does), referring to “structure and organization” and “grammar, spelling, and punctuation”).

• Emphasis on the purpose of the tool to inquire about and establish assignment-/project-, discipline-, and genre-specific requirements: The trainer should clarify that tutors should work with writers based on assignment sheets or project descriptions, or that tutor and writer should undertake research together on the required discipline or genre, and that tutors are not expected to be experts on specific discipline and/or genre requirements.

• Clarification of the focus on higher order concerns: Specifically, the trainer needs to explain that this focus is not imperative, but grounded in the pedagogical goal of transmitting or reinforcing sound, genre-specific structural and organizational choices, as well as the practical attempt at making efficient use of consultation time. Practically, where higher order concerns are revised, text passages that may have needed grammatical or other mechanical revisions may be replaced or removed, eliminating the need for revision, which, in reverse, would lead to “wasted” time (see further above, “Lesson Context, page 2-3; of course, time spent learning about lower order concerns like punctuation is not “wasted” time in a pedagogical sense, but it may be considered that from the perspective of efficient revision strategy). Thus, steering a consultation toward discussing higher order concerns early on also allows the tutor to triage potentially necessary interventions accordingly.

• Recognition that tutor is not accountable for writer choices or assignment outcomes: Depending on a center’s specific philosophy and framework, unless practiced otherwise, the trainer should emphasize that the tutor is not asked to pre-check or pre-grade any assignments they did not set, e.g. assess the value of a specific class assignment based on an assignment sheet. Tutors will want to avoid making definitive statements that create situations where writers believe their tutor is an ultimate authority and later blame this tutor for revisions to their project that did not meet expectations or requirements. In non-directive environments, the trainer may remind tutors that their primary goal is to serve writers as a partner in reflecting on the formal parameters of text, on the conceptual work that needs to take place (where the writer is still planning the project) or has already influenced an existing draft, ensuring that choices are or were made intentionally, which may serve as a learning experience for the writer by reinforcing useful choices and/or introducing new principles and strategies.

• Insistence on the limitations of the flowchart as a blueprint for organic conversations: The trainer needs to address that, functionally, the flowchart genre uses a yes/no dichotomy to facilitate decision making. In an organic writing center consultation conversation, writers will likely respond more complexly and narratively about their work and needs. The intention of the flowchart is to practice thinking about directions for a conversation, and through practice, including role-play, the tutor may learn to consider reflectively if what the writer responds is more affirmative (yes/agree), more negating (no/disagree), or if they need to rephrase their question to solicit the information they are looking for from the writer. The trainer might mention that the training session will return to this topic in the later discussion, where tutors are asked to reflect on and think about more organic ways a consultation might evolve, rather than a streamlined yes/no interaction (see Reflective Discussion questions).

• Confirmation of writer agency: It may be relevant to mention, whether or not minimalist/non-directive tutoring is practiced in a center’s respective framework, that the basis of the flowchart heuristic is yielding as much authority and agency as possible to the writer, and that the purpose of the suggested questions is not for the tutor to control the conversation, but to introduce the writer to considering higher order concerns as an essential writing skills. Nevertheless, and the flowchart offers several pathways to this, the writer’s decision to exit a conversation surrounding higher order frameworks and re-focus the session on another issue should always be respected and supported.

• Reiteration of organic consultation development and specific scenario decisions: The trainer should lay out that the amount of time spent on establishing the higher order framework of a consultation project through a conversation, like the one modeled through the flowchart, also needs to be assessed organically and is determined by such factors as the presence of an assignment sheet, whether the writer has established a draft or is in the planning/drafting stage, and the extent to which a draft appears coherently addressing requirements (e.g. there is a recognizable structure, the writer can identify a thesis in their own writing where required, etc.). This last item—the extent to which a draft, if one is shared, meets requirements—is a significant variable, as the writer may have solid or preliminary knowledge of the assignment and genre requirements; in either case, the writer may request to focus on higher order concerns (see Flowchart option 1A), lower order concerns (see Flowchart option 1C), or nothing specific (see Flowchart option 1B). Based on directive, non-directive, and other writing center philosophies and frameworks, the trainer needs to emphasize here that tutors need to assess based on the extent of their disciplinary training (e.g. training in writing in the disciplines) and comfort level if and to what extent they want to steer a conversation toward higher order concerns (see Flowchart option 1B). This could happen if the writer does not explicitly request to discuss these concerns, or if the writer requests a focus on lower order concerns (see Flowchart option 1C) but the tutor observes exigent higher order concerns (e.g. a missing thesis statement in a standard academic essay). Similarly, in consultations where writers request a focus on higher order concerns, tutors need to assess their own confidence in commenting on a specific genre and its requirements, and writer and tutor should work together to assess whether they think a draft or plan for a draft meets the genre or assignment requirements of that respective project. While laying out these complexities, the trainer should remind tutors that conversations about higher order concerns and frameworks do not need to take up an entire consultation, and, ultimately, in non-directive environments, agency should be granted to the writer to steer the conversation to other issues they wish to address (cf. Carino, 2003, on specific nuances of negotiating authority and agency in consultations).

Direct Engagement with Flowchart Heuristic

This activity takes approximately 35% of lesson time, e.g. 35 of 120 minutes.

Trainer introduces tutors to the Flowchart Heuristic document, either printed or digitally, on a large classroom/office screen (preferred) or on tutors’ individual screens. If interested or required for accessibility purposes, trainers may also introduce and/or share the accompanying, screen-readable Text-based Flowchart Content Document.

In a synchronous group setting, it may be engaging to ask for two to three volunteers to read through the flowchart out loud, with one reader acting as the tutor asking questions, one reader acting as the student responding “Yes” or “No,” and one reader, possibly the trainer, narrating functional text within the flowchart (appearing in italics).

Alternatively, tutors may be asked to break into small groups of 3-4 and work through the flowchart together, taking notes on observations and things that are unclear, or moments where they get stuck.

If administering the training asynchronously online, it is advisable to assign a certain timeframe for how long the tutor should at minimum take to work through the flowchart and ask them to take notes while doing so.

Reflective Discussion

This activity takes approximately 45% of lesson time, e.g. 55 of 120 minutes.

After talking through the flowchart, the tutor or tutors engage with reflective questions. Questions may be shared verbally, in print, or on a large or on individual screens. Discussion in a synchronous group environment would be particularly beneficial, as potential scenarios and "what if's" could be developed and critically dissected further among peers. If necessary, questions could be shared in an asynchronous format, prompting tutors to respond in writing, ideally with an added request to respond to other tutors’ written responses for further critical engagement.

Here is a selection of questions to offer for discussion, while individual trainers should feel comfortable adding and removing content as they see appropriate for their center’s respective context, practices, and philosophies (see desired responses in Assessment section below):

1. What affordances and constraints do you recognize in the flowchart?
2. In your own words, why do you think the flowchart steers conversations toward higher order concerns or frameworks (see Flowchart Section X)? In what ways do you think that is useful, and in what ways do you think it is limiting?
3. In what ways do you think the flowchart specifically prepares you for working with writers on papers in disciplines and/or genres you are less familiar with? In what ways is the flowchart limited in preparing you for such conversations? In what ways are you unsure about this issue after working through this lesson?
4. What recent or past experiences as a tutor or writer do you have that compare to a scenario from the flowchart, and how was your real-life experience similar or different?
5. Where the flowchart offers many yes-or-no junctures to represent writer responses, what could organic conversation look like at any of these points? In what ways might writers signal a “yes” or “no” in other words? In what ways might writers respond where it becomes more difficult for the tutor to discern if the response is “more yes” or “more no,” and how might tutors react to that?
6. Are there items in the flowchart that you would address vastly differently? Which, why, and how so?
7. A challenge the flowchart does not address is a situation where the writer has a draft or concrete plan, writer and tutor discuss higher order concerns (see Flowchart Section X), and the tutor notices - or it becomes apparent to both - that what the writer developed thus far does not meet the formal requirements of the respective assignment or genre. How would you address this dissonance (e.g. brainstorm, research further, etc.)? What challenges could this dissonance create (e.g. writer becomes discouraged or defensive, writer disagrees, writer loses confidence in tutor’s abilities, etc.)?

Questions are here arranged deliberately from broad observations (see 1) to specific elements (see 2), personal engagement (see 3 and 4), creative criticism (see 5), and problem solving (see 4 and 6). If content responding to questions 2, 3, 4, 5, and/or 6 appears organically in responses to 1 - or other questions - it is not necessary to talk through all questions, prescriptively, and trainers should feel free to change the order or phrasing of questions as they see fit, particularly in response to organic conversation and their center’s specific context.

It might be useful for the trainer (or, if available, co-trainer, teaching, or administrative assistant) to take notes on the discussion, for instance on a whiteboard in the classroom or using a digital tool to make notes available on an additional shared screen (Flowchart Heuristic should remain on screen if shared on a main classroom/office screen as visual aid) or tutors’ individual screens. This helps create focus, assists recall for recurring themes in discussion, and can aid accessibility.

Conclusion

This activity takes approximately 5% of lesson time, e.g. 10 of 120 minutes.

The trainer should remain mindful of time and wrap up the discussion with at least 10 minutes to spare in order to conclude the lesson. In this conclusion, the trainer should reiterate that the Flowchart Heuristic was introduced as a training tool and that its content cannot replace natural, organic conversation in a writing consultation. The trainer should clarify when and where tutors can raise and address additional questions on the lesson content and thank participants for their time and engagement.

ASSESSING FOR UNDERSTANDING

An assessment for understanding should derive naturally from discussion contributions during the reflection phase; the lesson does not provide a formal assessment framework.

Below are example responses that should appear in the reflective discussion to indicate tutors have understood the affordances and constraints of this lesson and the flowchart it offers:

What affordances and constraints do you recognize in the flowchart?

Tutors discuss here that the flowchart offers ways of inquiring about a new project to establish an understanding of assignment, discipline, and genre requirements for this specific project with and for the writer. They should mention that the flowchart is not a prescriptive tool and conversation in consultations should and will develop organically. In non-directive settings, tutors should indicate that writers should be the primary decision-makers in consultations and that their requests may diverge from the flowchart at any point.

In your own words, why do you think the flowchart steers conversations toward higher order concerns or frameworks (see Flowchart Section X)? In what ways do you think that is useful, and in what ways do you think it is limiting?

Tutors here should demonstrate an understanding of the usefulness of addressing higher order concerns before lower order concerns, which may become obsolete if sections of text are moved or removed in higher order revisions, but also of the fact that the concept of “higher order” and “lower order” concerns is not a prescriptive order of execution: that writers should be given agency in steering the conversation one way or the other, and that some writers may benefit from addressing lower order concerns first, to practice language skills, or to revisit ideas on a sentence level before revising them on a larger, higher order, scale.

In what ways do you think the flowchart specifically prepares you for working with writers on papers in disciplines and/or genres you are less familiar with? In what ways is the flowchart limited in preparing you for such conversations? In what ways are you unsure about this issue after working through this lesson?

Tutors should note here that the flowchart reinforces that they do not need to be experts in specific disciplines or genres, but that it assists in training them to assist writers to inquire and find answers about their projects’ higher order concerns or requirements. A clear limitation of the flowchart tutors should notice is that it does not provide discipline- or genre-specific text requirements beyond illustrative examples in Section X (e.g. thesis statement). This limitation should, again, reinforce that tutors should feel comfortable finding answers with writers, instead of being expected to provide answers on specific projects they have never encountered before.

What recent or past experiences as a tutor or writer do you have that compare to a scenario from the flowchart, and how was your real-life experience similar or different?

Trainers need to assess here, organically, if the example scenarios tutors provide in the reflective discussion do or do not align with specific sections of the flowchart and the primary lesson content.

Where the flowchart offers many yes-or-no junctures to represent writer responses, what could organic conversation look like at any of these points? In what ways might writers signal a “yes” or “no” in other words? In what ways might writers respond where it becomes more difficult for the tutor to discern if the response is “more yes” or “more no,” and how might tutors react to that?

Trainers need to assess here, organically, if the example scenarios tutors provide in the reflective discussion do or do not align with specific sections of the flowchart and the primary lesson content. The basic tenet of this question is for tutors to illustrate that they understand that the flowchart offers a theoretical perspective and that actual consultations will diverge from the specific language provided.

Are there items in the flowchart that you would address vastly differently? Which, why, and how so?

This is a critical thinking question that reinforces the main lesson content through critical engagement (Ambrose et al., 2010) and responses should be assessed organically, with essentially “no wrong answers” possible.

A challenge the flowchart does not address is a situation where the writer has a draft or concrete plan, writer and tutor discuss higher order concerns (see Flowchart Section X), and the tutor notices - or it becomes apparent to both - that what the writer developed thus far does not meet the formal requirements of the respective assignment or necessary genre. How would you address this dissonance (e.g. brainstorm, research further, etc.)? What challenges could this dissonance create (e.g. writer becomes discouraged or defensive, writer disagrees, writer loses confidence in tutor’s abilities, etc.)?

This is another reinforcing question and tutors should again demonstrate in their answers that they are prepared to explain to writers why addressing higher order concerns may be advantageous, but also to diverge from the flowchart, and to listen to the writer’s requests beyond the flowchart’s suggestions.

In what ways has this flowchart exercise helped you feel better prepared for tutoring? Do you feel like it has helped you build confidence toward tutoring and, if so, in what ways?

This is a personal reflective question and all feedback is welcome. Where tutors report a lack or decrease in preparedness or confidence, including aspects of the flowchart creating confusion or frustration, trainers should ensure to check in and revisit these challenges.

A. The trainer prepares the role-play by extracting scenarios from the flowchart.

For example, the writer has an assignment sheet, writer has no assignment sheet, writer has a draft, writer is in the planning stage, writer is working on a project that is not a course assignment, etc. The trainer writes short scripts for tutor groups to act out each scenario, potentially providing sample assignment sheets or writing samples.

B. The trainer identifies scenarios and the tutors write scripts and act them out

The trainer extracts scenarios from the flowcharts (see “A” for examples). The tutors are divided into pairs or groups. Each pair or group is assigned a scenario and, based on their experience tutoring thus far, or as writers or writers seeking a Writing Center consultation, is asked to develop a short role-play acting out their respective scenario. Pairs and groups could be asked to perform for the larger group.

C. The tutors identify a scenario, write a script, and act it out

Tutors are divided into groups and are asked to extract scenarios from the flowchart themselves and to develop short role-plays to share with the larger group. 

In role-play forms A and B, the trainer is encouraged to incorporate further complexity, working off discussion questions 4 and 6, where writer responses are not easily categorized as “yes” or “no,” and/or where sample drafts shared for role-playing do not meet presumed expectations, but a role-playing writer denies a role-playing tutor’s request to address these concerns. In role-play form C, the trainer may add a similar prompt to the overall group assignment or give this “wild card prompt” to one specific group to introduce this complexity, specifically.

To facilitate reflection and meta-cognition, all role-playing should be accompanied by note-taking and followed by discussion, inviting tutors to share where the flowchart served them well, its shortcomings, and alignment and deviation between the flowchart and applied, organic conversation in application.

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works. John Wiley & Sons. 

Brooks, J. (1991). Minimalist tutoring: Making the student do all the work. Writing Lab Newsletter, 15(6), 1-4. 

Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the ‘conversation of mankind.’ In G. A. Olson (Ed.), Writing centers: Theory and administration (pp. 3-15). NCTE.

Carino, P. (2003). Power and authority in peer tutoring. In M. A. Pemberton & J. A. Kinkead (Eds.), The center will hold: Critical perspectives on writing center scholarship (pp. 96-113). Utah State University Press.

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58(3), 385–418. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc20075912 

Cross, S., & Catchings, L. (2018). Consultation length and higher order concerns: A RAD study. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, 43(3), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.37514/WLN-J.2018.43.3.04 

Dinitz, S., & Harrington, S. (2014). The role of disciplinary expertise in shaping writing tutorials. The Writing Center Journal, 33(2), 73–98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43443372 

Gillespie, P., & Lerner, N. (2000). The Allyn and Bacon guide to peer tutoring. Allyn & Bacon.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the ‘conversation of mankind.’ In G. A. Olson (Ed.), Writing centers: Theory and administration (pp. 3–15). NCTE.

Carino, P. (2003). Power and authority in peer tutoring. In M. A. Pemberton & J. A. Kinkead (Eds.), The center will hold: Critical perspectives on writing center scholarship (pp. 96–113). Utah State University Press.

Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the middle: Why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57, 27-42. 

Hubbuch, S. M. (1988). A tutor needs to know the subject matter to help a student with a paper: _Agree _disagree _not sure. The Writing Center Journal, 8(2), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1133  

Nordlof, J. (2014). Vygotsky, scaffolding, and the role of theory in writing center work. The Writing Center Journal, 34(1), 45–64. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43444147 

North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46(5), 433–446.

Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL). (n.d.) Higher order concerns (HOCs) and lower order concerns (LOCs). The OWL at Purdue. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/hocs_and_locs.html

FURTHER READING

If trainers are interested, for further reading on preparing tutors to decide and switch between directive and non-directive strategies, I recommend:

Henning, T. (2005). The tutoring style decision tree: A useful heuristic for tutors. Writing Lab Newsletter, 30(1), 5–8.

This exercise would fit in CRLA Level 1 certification training. Ideally, this would take place as part of the required tutor-trainer led, interactive, synchronous (TIS) component in combination with discussion or even role-play. It may, however, also be administered asynchronously including the required reflection piece.

I would like to thank Olivia Tracy and the Center Moves team for granting me this opportunity to dip my toes back into the Writing Center pool.

Carol Saulmueller

University of Minnesota

Carola “Carol” Saalmueller is a PhD candidate in Writing, Rhetoric and Technical Communication (WRTC) at the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities). While her current research focuses on multimodal representations of body diversity in technical documentation, she has an extensive past in the Writing Center World, serving as tutor/writing advisor in Germany, Washington and Texas. Her past Writing Center work has focused on internationally transposable pedagogies and fostering writing skills and motivation through emphasizing writers’ individual personalities, interests, and passions.

Saalmueller, Center Moves, no. 5, 2026.