Center Moves: A Peer-Reviewed Archive of Tutor Training Materials Vol 4, Issue 1, July 2025 Writing Stellar Tutor Notes: Documenting Writing Center Sessions for Purpose, Process, and ProfessionalismMichelle A. MarvinUniversity of Notre DameKEYWORDS tutor ethos/persona; tutoring session logistics abstractThis interactive workshop helps writing center tutors develop strategies for composing tutor notes (i.e., conference summaries, session reports, etc.) that reflect their authentic voice and the professionalism of the center, while keeping the focus on the tutee’s work. The training emphasizes documenting sessions in a reporter style without relying on AI for composition. During the workshop, tutors collaboratively analyze sample tutor notes and work through revision activities to practice writing clear, informative, audience-focused reports. The workshop offers practical strategies alongside reflection and prepares tutors to apply their new understanding in their next appointments. By the end of the workshop, tutors have a stronger grasp of an analytical structure and professional tone that characterizes “stellar” tutor notes: notes that effectively convey both what took place in the session and the values of the writing center. |
|
TYPES & MODES
|
|
TIMING & OCCURENCE
|
|
AUDIENCE
|
|
MATERIALS NEEDED
|
LEsson Overview
Recently, we observed a shift in the quality of tutor notes in our Writing Center. Some notes seemed rushed or unclear, while others had an AI-generated polished-but-impersonal feel. Because our mission focuses on helping students become better writers through careful listening, close reading, and thoughtful questioning, this shift was concerning: We wanted tutor notes to reflect our center’s values and serve as extensions of the session itself, not just administrative record-keeping. We see tutor notes as rhetorical artifacts that reflect the values and pedagogical commitments of our center. In particular, we wanted to maintain a standard of professionalism regarding clarity, purposefulness, and rhetorical awareness for our institutional audiences, while keeping the writing authentic to the tutor’s voice and values. We recognize that “professionalism” has often been used to enforce dominant cultural norms, and our intent is to support tutor writing that is both effective and inclusive, honoring the diverse identities of our staff. Without a balance of these qualities, we worried that such documentation would weaken the records of our collective pedagogy and values. In order to realign our practice with our goals, we decided to create a tutor note professional development workshop for our staff.
Our Writing Center operates in a mid-sized private liberal arts university with 55 tutors conducting synchronous appointments. After each 45-minute appointment, tutors have 15 minutes to document their session in WCOnline; in practice, they often complete their tutor notes in half this time and use the remaining time to debrief with fellow tutors, read through previous tutor notes for upcoming repeat-tutees’ sessions, and otherwise take a break. Their notes remain in our database for reference by administrators and tutors alike, and are shared with instructors only at a tutee’s request. At our center, tutees rarely ask for the official tutor notes, preferring instead handwritten or typed comments created live by the tutor during the session. Although students are not the primary audience of our official tutor notes, the tutor notes serve multiple readers including administrators, tutors, and instructors, and therefore they should be clear, rhetorically aware, and professional for both internal operations and external perception.
To develop our training, we grounded our praxis in research by Bugdal et al. (2016), who found that students, faculty, and tutors preferred a “reporter-style” tutor note balancing professional tone and collaborative work. This style emphasizes the writing process rather than evaluating the product. We incorporated Weaver’s (2001) insights on tutor anxiety when writing for faculty audiences and Hall’s (2017) framework of note writing as a learned discourse practice requiring models and feedback.
Additionally, we were affirmed in learning that improving tutor notes affects more than just individual documentation practices. As Giaimo et al. (2018) demonstrate, the collective language in these notes influences how the center is perceived institutionally. And while the value of this communication between tutors and note-readers has been demonstrated, Modey et al. (2021) found that few centers provide consistent training on documentation. Although our Writing Center provides introductory training on how to write a tutor note during orientation weeks to newly hired tutors, the following workshop lesson plan was developed specifically to address our full staff after everyone was well into the fall semester.
Following our workshop, tutors reported greater confidence in understanding purpose, structure, and collaborative language emphasizing tutee agency. Over the next several weeks when reading tutor notes, we observed improvements in professionalism and authenticity that reflected our Writing Center’s mission. These qualities showed up in tutor notes with accurate summaries of student goals (careful listening), clear documentation of what the writer shared and worked on (close reading), and attention to writer needs and development (thoughtful questioning). The improvements point to a shift toward what we are calling “stellar” tutor notes: notes that balance professionalism and authenticity, reflect the values and pedagogical commitments of our center, and represent the session clearly to internal and external readers.
REFERENCES
- Bugdal, M., Reardon, K., & Deans, T. (2016). Summing up the session: A study of student, faculty, and tutor attitudes toward tutor notes. The Writing Center Journal, 35(3), 13–44. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1840
- Giaimo, G. N., Cheatle, J. J., Hastings, C. K., & Modey, C. (2018). It’s all in the notes: What session notes can tell us about the work of writing centers. The Journal of Writing Analytics, 2, 225–241. https://doi.org/10.37514/JWA-J.2018.2.1.09
- Hall, R. M. (2017). Around the texts of writing center work. An inquiry-based approach to tutor education. Utah State University Press.
- Modey, C., Giaimo, G., & Cheatle, J. (2021). Session notes: Preliminary results from a cross-institutional survey. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 18(3). https://www.praxisuwc.com/183-modey-et-al
- Weaver, M. (2001). Resistance is anything but futile: Some more thoughts on writing conference summaries. The Writing Center Journal, 21(2), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1449
Tutors who complete this workshop should be able to:
- Compose clear, accurate tutor notes that reflect the Writing Center’s high standards of professionalism and authenticity.
- Identify and write for a primary audience, with an awareness of secondary readers.
- Summarize what took place in an appointment with appropriate detail and length.
- Write tutor notes without turning to AI for generation or rewriting.
INSTRUCTIONAL PLAN
This workshop was originally delivered in person to a group of approximately 40 undergraduate tutors. We gathered in our large writing center meeting space, with tutors seated in groups of four or five around tables. A screen at the front of the room was used to project key materials, and each tutor also received a handout to follow along. The tutors’ participation was fully analog. No laptops or devices were used, and we did not use the shared Google Slides during the revision activity. All work was done collaboratively at the tables through discussion and handwritten revision.
The lesson plan is organized into six parts: Introduction, Ideals, Models, Analysis and Revision, Discussion, and Conclusion. When delivered in full, the workshop takes approximately 60 minutes. Suggestions for shorter or longer versions of the workshop, virtual delivery, and adaptations for writing centers with different tutor note practices can be found below the lesson plan.
INTRODUCTION (~10 minutes)
Purpose: Activate tutors’ prior knowledge about tutor notes, identify current habits and assumptions, and begin reframing tutor notes as rhetorical and institutional documents.
- Framing:
-
- Welcome tutors to the workshop.
- Briefly explain the workshop's goal: improving tutor notes by focusing on audience, purpose, language, and structure.
-
- Sample language: “Today’s session is about strengthening the effectiveness of what we communicate in tutor notes to their intended audience. We’re not just thinking about how to write them more clearly, but how to write them in a way that reflects what took place during the session and represents the values of the Writing Center.
-
Discussion:
-
- Pair tutors together.
- Ask pairs to discuss the following questions and be prepared to share an insight with the larger group:
-
- Sample language: “When you compose a tutor note, what information are you intending to communicate? Who do you imagine will be reading the tutor note?”
-
After 2-3 minutes, solicit responses from volunteer pairs to share insights with the larger group.
-
Optional Facilitator Anecdote:
-
-
Share a story about a time when you, as a facilitator, received a note from an appointment. Explain your experience of the analytical / evaluative comments in the note. I like to share a story that illustrates just how much tone and phrasing in session documentation can impact someone’s perception of their own progress.
-
Feel free to use my example, or substitute one from your own experience if something similar resonates. My example focuses on how comments that evaluate a person, rather than their work, can change the reader’s experience of receiving feedback.
-
-
When I first developed this training, I had recently undergone shoulder surgery and was attending physical therapy. Most of the time, I saw the same PT who wrote notes that were very analytical. She tracked my range of motion, listed the exercises we worked through, and noted what I should focus on the following week. Then one day, I had a substitute PT who described me in his note as “overly anxious” and said I “required excessive encouragement.”
-
Reading that note was genuinely disheartening. I had felt like I was making good progress, but this new note made me feel judged and discouraged. It stuck with me, not because it was wrong necessarily, but because it was evaluative in a way that felt personal and unhelpful. It made me think about how easy it is, even with a few words, to undermine someone’s confidence or distort their sense of what happened.
-
This experience reminded me that our tutor notes have real audiences - instructors, students, future tutors - and that how we write about their experience matters. A note that focuses on observable actions and next steps can help a writer understand progress without feeling judged. A note that strays into vague praise or criticism can confuse or even demoralize the writer.
-
-
Invite tutors to turn to their partners again for a brief discussion about their own experience with evaluative feedback.
-
-
Sample language: “This story is a reminder that written feedback can unintentionally shift from being about the work to being about the person. The shift, even if subtle, can change how someone sees their own progress, and can change their relationship with receiving feedback broadly.”
-
Prompt: “Take one minute with your partner to share a time you received feedback that either helped or hurt, not because of what was said, but because of its focus on either you or your work. What kind of language did it use? How did it affect your motivation or your confidence? What change in language might have switched it to be the opposite – helpful or hurtful?
-
-
-
Connect to Research
-
-
Make a connection between tutors’ comments and Writing Center scholarship on tutor notes. Although tutors are not expected to have read texts in preparation for this workshop, the facilitator can connect the workshop to findings in Bugdal, Reardon, and Deans (2016):
-
-
Students, faculty, and tutors prefer tutor notes that are professional, student-centered, and descriptive rather than evaluative.
- These “reporter-style” notes best reflect the pedagogical work of the Writing Center and support credibility across the institution.
-
Sample language (modify according to procedures for and voice used in facilitator’s center): “Today we will be practicing a reporter style of tutor note, based on a 2016 study by writing center scholars Bugdal, Reardon, and Deans. They found that students, faculty, and tutors prefer notes that are professional, student-centered, and descriptive rather than evaluative. Reporter-style tutor notes are typically one paragraph long, composed in a formal tone, and use second person, or ‘you.’ At our Writing Center, we use third person instead, which was also favored by institutional readers in the same study, so we will continue to use third person. Our goal today is to write reporter-style tutor notes that clearly report what took place in the session without adding commentary or judgment about the tutee or how we thought the session went. And while Bugdal, Reardon, and Deans called these notes reporter-style, we’re calling them stellar.”
-
-
BODY
Part A: Ideals (~7 minutes)
Purpose: Introduce the Writing Center’s expectations for tutor notes using the Stellar Tutor Notes handout. Focus on purpose, language, and structure in writing the notes (not discussing the models yet).
-
Framing:
Introduce tutors to the word “stellar” as a descriptor for ideal tutor notes. -
-
Frame “stellar” not as perfection, but as alignment with values and clear, guiding communication.
-
- Sample language: “I’m going to introduce you to a way to write stellar tutor notes. But first, I want to share with you why I’m using the word stellar. To me, this word doesn’t mean perfect. It means that the note stands out brightly in a way that shows guidance: for the tutee during the session, for the reader of the note who wants to understand what took place during the session, and for the institution that wants to understand the values and pedagogy of the writing center. It’s a beacon of trust that demonstrates that the work of the writing center is professional and meaningful.”
- Comment on how an ideal, or stellar, tutor note includes an authentic voice. We need to resist the temptation to generate a note with AI.
-
-
Sample language: “I’d also like to add a note about authenticity, which is a key factor in that trust component. Sometimes it’s tempting to turn to ChatGPT or another AI tool to generate or rewrite a tutor note. But part of why tutees come to the writing center, and why instructors refer them, is to learn how to write as a human from a human. A tutor note that sounds like it might have been written by AI can undermine that exact work and, therefore, the credibility of the writing center. It suggests that we’re outsourcing the very thing students are coming here to practice. When we write tutor notes in our own voice, with clarity and care, we reinforce the value of what we’re doing in the writing center.”
-
-
Distribute handout - Stellar Tutor Notes – Do and Don’t List - and project on screen simultaneously.
- Emphasize the importance of shared language and clear structure to support tutors in identifying and producing stellar tutor notes.
- Make clear that the handout is not a rulebook but a guide for reflection, clarity, and consistency.
-
-
Engage with the first page of the handout.
-
- Walk tutors through the “do and don’t list” on the handout.
- Pause after each section for a brief discussion or questions.
Part B: Models (~7 minutes)
Purpose: Reinforce the principles from the Stellar Tutor Notes handout by examining strong tutor notes modeled on real-world tutor notes. Tutors observe how purpose, language, and structure show up in well-written notes.
-
Framing:
-
- Let tutors know this is a time to observe and analyze, not critique.
- Emphasize that these examples were selected because they reflect the values and structure discussed in the list.
- Set the tone as exploratory. What can we learn from looking at other notes?
- Model review
-
- Have tutors review silently or with a partner the three stellar notes on the back of the handout and also project them on the screen.
- Ask tutors to observe one or two of the “Do” list items that each note does well.
-
Discussion:
-
-
Options:
-
-
Lead a full-group discussion for each example (suggested for a small group).
- Have tutors turn to their partners and compare observations before sharing with the larger group (suggested for a larger group).
-
- Suggested prompt: “What is one thing you noticed in model #_ that reflects the ideals described on the front page?”
- If tutors overlook key strengths of a model note, particularly those that are weak in the center, point out those strengths.
-
PART C: GROUP ANALYSIS & REVISION (~15 minutes)
Purpose: Give tutors the opportunity to collaboratively revise underdeveloped or problematic tutor notes using the principles discussed in parts 1 and 2. Reinforce audience awareness, purpose, language, and structure through practice.
-
Framing:
-
- Transition from analyzing stellar tutor notes to analyzing and revising underdeveloped tutor notes.
-
- Sample language: “Now that we’ve seen what stellar tutor notes can look like, let’s get a little more involved in writing them. We’re going to work in small groups to revise some tutor notes that need a bit more shaping to meet our goals.”
- Explain to the tutors that the examples used in this activity were created specifically for this training, but are modeled closely on real tutor notes and reflect patterns we see frequently in writing center documentation. Many of us have written notes like these at some point, and that’s exactly why they’re valuable for practice and revision.
- The purpose is not to condemn these notes as “bad” but to practice revising them toward “stellar” so they better reflect the session and represent the Writing Center professionally.
-
Activity Options:
-
-
Tech-free Option: Paper Handout
-
- The facilitator distributes the Tutor Notes for Improvement handout.
- Tutors are divided into small groups, and each group is assigned 1-2 notes to revise.
- Each group reads their assigned tutor note(s).
- Using the Stellar Tutor Notes handout, groups identify 2-3 areas for improvement.
- Groups revise their note(s) collaboratively and without the aid of AI.
- Each group writes their revised version on the handout to share aloud after time is called.
-
Digital Option: Google Slides
-
- The facilitator shares a link to the Kick It Up a Notch! Google Slide deck.
- Tutors are divided into small groups, and each group is assigned one slide with a tutor note.
- Each group reads their assigned tutor note.
- Using the Stellar Tutor Notes handout, groups identify 2-3 areas for improvement.
- Groups revise the note directly on the slide, collaboratively and without the aid of AI.
- Each group presents their revised version and explains the changes after time is called.
-
PART D: GROUP DISCUSSION (~15 minutes)
Purpose: Debrief the revision activity by inviting tutors to reflect on what they changed, why they changed it, and how their revisions align with the goals of stellar tutor notes. This discussion deepens tutor awareness of audience perception as well as rhetorical choices in language and structure.
- Invite tutor small groups to share what they noticed in their assigned tutor note before reading their revision.
- Groups read their revisions and discuss changes made according to the Stellar Tutor Notes handout.
- The facilitator guides the discussion toward emphasizing key features of effective notes.
-
Possible facilitator prompts to guide group discussion:
-
- How did you adjust the language to be more descriptive than evaluative?
- Where did you shift vague or general descriptions into something more specific?
- How did you balance focus and concision to keep your tutor note from becoming too wordy?
- Did you change any language or phrases that sounded overly tutor-focused?
- How did audience awareness shape the focus of your revisions?
- How did you revise the tutor note with the reporter-style structure in mind?
CONCLUSION (~5 minutes)
Purpose: Reinforce the workshop’s key takeaways, invite reflection, and support tutors in applying what they’ve learned to future appointments.
-
Framing:
-
- Reaffirm that tutor notes are not just a chore but make their valuable work visible to others in the institution and represent the values of the Writing Center.
- Encourage the tutors to practice making one or two changes in their next tutor notes.
-
Pair share:
-
- Ask tutors to turn to their original partners from the beginning of the workshop.
- Ask pairs to discuss the following questions:
-
- Prompt: “What is one concrete element from the ‘Do’ part of the Stellar Tutor Notes list that you want to focus on in your future tutor notes? What value will this bring to your notes?”
-
Final reflections:
-
- If time permits, invite 2-3 tutors to share their intentions with the larger group.
- Thank tutors for their engagement with the workshop.
- Offer to provide feedback on tutor notes as they continue writing them.
ASSESSING FOR UNDERSTANDING
- Objective 1: Compose clear, accurate tutor notes that reflect the Writing Center’s high standards of professionalism and authenticity.
-
- Tutors collaboratively revise underdeveloped and flawed tutor notes during the workshop, applying principles from the Stellar Tutor Notes handout. Facilitators assess understanding by listening to group discussions, observing language choices, and reviewing revised tutor notes for alignment with the qualities of a stellar tutor note.
- Objective 2: Identify and write for a primary audience, with an awareness of secondary readers.
-
- Tutors reflect on audience from the very beginning of the workshop, starting with the opening pair discussion. They continue to develop this awareness throughout the session during the analysis of stellar model notes, the group revision activity, and the large-group discussion. Facilitators assess understanding through the specificity of tutor comments and through their revision decisions, particularly in how they anticipate the needs of readers who were not present in the appointment.
- Objective 3: Summarize what took place in an appointment with appropriate detail and length.
-
- Tutors practice summarizing by revising notes using a four-part analytical structure. Facilitators assess how clearly tutors describe the session, whether they include relevant details, and whether the details are excessive or too wordy in their revisions.
- Objective 4: Write tutor notes without turning to AI for generation or rewriting.
-
- The facilitator addresses this topic directly during the “ideals” portion of the body of the lesson. Tutors practice revising tutor notes using their own words and without turning to AI for revision suggestions. Facilitators assess the success of this objective on an ongoing basis as tutor notes continue to be reviewed after the workshop.
Writing Center tutor note contextual differences:
- If tutor notes are primarily written for tutees: Adapt the handout and sample notes to use second-person phrasing (e.g., “You revised your thesis …”) and reflect on how audience, tone, language, and structure shapes the tutors’ rhetorical choices.
- If tutor notes are handwritten / on paper: Emphasize legibility, concision, and organizing ideas clearly. Discuss record keeping and the benefits / drawbacks of physical tutor notes.
- If tutor notes are more of a form or checklist: Focus the workshop on improving responses in the open textbox fields. Use the reporting structure for the open textboxes and incorporate elements into the narrative that are not captured in checkboxes.
- If tutor notes include a reflection or self-evaluation: Encourage tutors to distinguish between outward-facing reports (for instructors or tutees) and inward-facing reflections. Use a two-part activity where tutors revise both the summary and a reflective response, considering the language and purpose for each.
- If the writing center allows or encourages AI revision of tutor notes: Emphasize rhetorical decision-making and human authorship. Consider including a comparison between well-written human-authored tutor notes and AI-revised tutor notes to analyze voice, tone, and language. Invite tutors to reflect on how to make sure their use of AI still aligns with writing center values and supports authentic, tutee-centered documentation.
Training contextual differences:
- If the training is offered synchronously but remotely: Use the Google Slides version of the revision activity for live group editing. If Google Slides is not available, a PPT version of the slides are provided in the materials section, although they do not have a live group editing feature. Use chat features to prompt written thoughts before opening shorter discussions and use breakout rooms to support small group discussions.
- If the workshop time frame is longer than 60 minutes: Add time for tutors to revise one of their own past tutor notes using the Stellar Tutor Notes handout. Have them partner and share their revisions with another tutor, where the other tutor acts in role-play as the recipient (instructor, tutee, etc.) and asks follow-up questions. Optionally, invite tutors to reflect briefly aloud or in writing on what they noticed in their past notes and how they would like to adjust their approach moving forward.
- If the workshop time frame is shorter than 40 minutes: Focus on one model note to demonstrate the Do and Don’t list. Limit the number of underdeveloped notes to revise and discuss. Provide the handout in advance as a pre-reading, and prioritize revision discussion. Optionally, consider a follow-up check-in (verbal or written) with each tutor after several weeks to reflect on how their tutor note writing is going.
RESOURCES
The following scholarship helped to inform our understanding of the evolving conversation around writing center tutor notes.
- Bahrainwala, L. (2013). “Should I take notes as you brainstorm?”: Examining consultants’ in-session notes. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 11(1). https://www.praxisuwc.com/bahrainwala-111
- Bugdal, M., Reardon, K., & Deans, T. (2016). Summing up the session: A study of student, faculty, and tutor attitudes toward tutor notes. The Writing Center Journal, 35(3), 13–44. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1840
- Giaimo, G. N., Cheatle, J. J., Hastings, C. K., & Modey, C. (2018). It’s all in the notes: What session notes can tell us about the work of writing centers. The Journal of Writing Analytics, 2, 225–241. https://doi.org/10.37514/JWA-J.2018.2.1.09
- Hall, R. M. (2017). Around the texts of writing center work. An inquiry-based approach to tutor education. Logan: Utah State University Press.
- Modey, C., Giaimo, G., & Cheatle, J. (2021). Session notes: Preliminary results from a cross-institutional survey. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 18(3). https://www.praxisuwc.com/183-modey-et-al
- Nelson-Burns, C., & Wilson, J. (2008). What writing center conference summaries reveal about writing center practices and principles at work. The Learning Assistance Review, 12 (1), 29–42.
- Weaver, M. (2001). Resistance is anything but futile: Some more thoughts on writing conference summaries. The Writing Center Journal, 21(2), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1449
REFERENCES
- Bugdal, M., Reardon, K., & Deans, T. (2016). Summing up the session: A study of student, faculty, and tutor attitudes toward tutor notes. The Writing Center Journal, 35(3), 13–44. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1840
PERMISSIONS
As the author, I attest that all sample tutor notes included in this submission were created specifically for this training purpose and inspired by anonymized patterns observed in our Writing Center's documentation practices. No actual student writing or tutor notes from our database have been reproduced in these materials.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Michelle A. Marvin
University of Notre Dame
Michelle Marvin is the associate director of the Writing Center and an assistant teaching professor in the University Writing Program at the University of Notre Dame. The Writing Center is her passion and vocation, though eating chocolate is a close second. Michelle's current research centers on environmental and sustainability rhetoric and examines how messaging influences our reactions to ecological concerns. In addition, she is exploring the advantages and disadvantages of AI on writing practices and is taking steps to implement effective program assessment measures.
Marvin, Center Moves, no. 4, 2025.