in-person tutoring; synchronous online tutoring; verbal feedback / response; scaffolding feedback / approaches; writing process; writing in the disciplines / writing across the curriculum / research

ABSTRACT

No writing consultant has expertise in genre conventions and disciplinary expectations in all fields across a university. As writing center professionals, we must consistently encourage graduate writers to work closely with their faculty because the writers and their faculty are the disciplinary experts. Simultaneously, we must ensure that all consultants can scaffold effective research writing consultations across disciplines. This one-hour professional development workshop introduces a strategy for scaffolding active reading and rhetorical analysis of a writer-selected peer-reviewed source from the writer’s own reference list. Consultants learn how to help writers in exploring the organization, rhetorical choices, and style of published writing from the student writer’s discipline to promote deeper understanding of disciplinary conventions. This knowledge helps consultants provide more informed writing feedback, while deepening writers’ understanding of writing in their field and modeling active reading for research writing. Our materials include a workshop lesson plan, handout, and slide deck with examples.

CONTENTS

TRAINING DETAILS

LESSON OVERVIEW

Our center is staffed by one director, who is also faculty, three to five graduate student writing consultants, and three to five undergraduate student writing consultants. This active reading workshop was developed in collaboration with our center’s more experienced writing center consultants in response to a novice consultant’s question about how to support research writing in unfamiliar disciplinary fields. It is offered in a consultant’s first semester after the initial orientation with the learning objective of preparing consultants to scaffold active reading consultations for research writing.

Carillo (2017) highlights the connections between reading and writing support in the writing center and in the writing process more generally, urging writing centers to embrace reading support as a part of their pedagogy. Adams (2019) argues that writing centers are indeed already “reading centered” by virtue of the relationship between reading and writing (pp. 74-75). King (2018) further argues that “the neglect of reading in writing center scholarship carries over into tutor preparation, much to the detriment of all involved” (p. 64). This workshop builds on King and Boeshart Burelle (2025)’s writing center unit plan for promoting rhetorical reading and source use while drawing from Aull and Shapiro’s Critical Language Awareness (2025) reading framework and Phillips and Ryerson’s stance of “openness and humility” in encouraging writing center consultants and student writers to demonstrate curiosity about disciplinary writing conventions (2022).

Consultants have responded favorably to this workshop. In post-session reflective writing, one consultant observed the following: “The specific expertise that I have cannot extend to every possible field: therefore, using articles within the student’s subject to model what their own writing should look like is an invaluable tool in the collaborative consulting process.”

LEARNING OUTCOMES/OBJECTIVES

In this lesson, tutors will be able to:

INSTRUCTIONAL PLAN

PRE-WORK

Prior to the workshop, consultants are asked to bring a piece of their own research writing with them for this workshop. This preparatory work may be announced in a weekly announcement email or at a previous team meeting. Students may select any research writing that they have completed in any discipline, genre, and format as long as it integrates discussion of secondary sources. Consultants are also encouraged to watch the film Supporting the Growth of Graduate Writers while in the center and not with a writer prior to the workshop if time permits. Students may advance through this open-access film by clicking the “Next” button.

This research workshop does not need to occur in a sequence with any other specific workshops, but it should at least follow the initial training. If there are training modules pertaining to MLA, APA, Chicago or other formatting conventions, this workshop would be a natural fit after those discussions. The research workshop should be offered for the full team during any new consultants’ first semester in the writing center, allowing more experienced consultants to share their experiences with new consultants.

INTRODUCTION (25 minutes)

Discussion (10 Minutes): The workshop begins with discussion of consultants’ most effective experiences supporting graduate research writing, as well as questions and concerns. The director then shares one of their experiences supporting research writing in a field that is outside their area of expertise. The director should highlight differences in organization, style, and language choices and ways they oriented to these differences, especially with the use of published scholarship in that writer’s field. The director normalizes the experience of talking about writing outside the consultant’s field of expertise and models the types of inquiry that help to support conversations about research writing in an unfamiliar disciplinary field. This is where the team introduces SLO 1. 

Modeling (15 Minutes): The director and/or consultant facilitators then share the PowerPoint that provides a theoretical rationale and showcases examples of relevant sections in an example research paper, calling special attention to the disciplinary field of the chosen model, which is ideally from a field that is represented by the center’s writers. The team explores the organization and style of the paper. The example annotations, which the team completes together by studying the excerpts and sample text in the workshop, should include discussion of features such as the following: (1) The title, (2) A gap statement, (3) A thesis or research questions, (4) Discussion of exigence, (5) Topic sentences in a literature review, (6) Discussion of methodology and/or theoretical lens, (7) Discussion of findings and key arguments, (8) Discussion of the significance in the conclusion. These examples can be projected or shared on a handout.

BODY OF LESSON (35 minutes)

Activity (25 Minutes):

We introduce and then begin the activity, which is the focus of the workshop.

Part 1: In pairs, the consultants complete a mock consultation involving research writing with an actual research writing sample written by one of the consultants. All consultants are required to bring a writing sample so that either partner can serve as writer or consultant in the mock session. In the mock consultation, the writer and consultant then locate an article from the writer’s references, using the library databases or Google Scholar. Since this workshop is meant to prepare consultants for a similar writing consultation, we do not supply printed copies of articles or even verify that writers’ citations are correct. Consultants may encounter these very challenges during a live consultation and must learn to navigate them. To do so, the consultant must model practices for locating sources. If the first source the pair identifies has a broken link and incorrect citation, they should move to another source from the works cited, following the process that the consultant should use in an actual consultation. Once the article has been accessed, the consultant introduces rhetorical reading as a strategy to help with planning or revision in disciplinary research writing.

Part 2: Next, they annotate part of the article either on their screens or by taking notes on a separate sheet, considering things like the following, depending on questions raised by the writer: (1) What does the title look like in terms of length, detail, and structure? (2) How does the writer engage the audience in the introduction? For instance, to what extent or at what point are scholarly sources cited? Does the writer provide explicit discussion of exigence? (3) Are there explicitly stated research questions; is there a thesis; or are there both? What level of detail is supplied for each of these? (4) How is the article organized? Is it broken into sections? (5) How are sources put in conversation with one another? (6) What counts as evidence? How is that evidence presented? How is it organized and discussed? (7) What types of conclusions are offered? How does the article address the research significance? It will not be possible to address all of these questions in a single 30-minute writing consultation; even an hour could easily be filled with this analysis. Consultants should aim to spend roughly half of their consultation time with active reading of a published source and half of their consultation time helping the writer to apply insights in their own writing. The consultant and writer should negotiate the focus of this session, for instance, just focusing on the introduction, the literature review, or another section in their active reading and then in their applications. It is during Part 2 of the workshop that facilitators should circulate and assess SLO 2.

Part 3: Based on the observations of the published source, now they study the writer’s research writing that they brought with them to the workshop, which cited that published source. How do the structure and language of the writer’s research writing compare to the published paper? Are there any revisions that the writer and consultant can identify based on what they saw in the published writing sample? Ideally, the writer is able to identify some current strengths and areas for revision. Each pair should identify one specific revision that the writer could make based on their discussion and analysis. It is during this part of the workshop that facilitators should circulate and assess SLO 3.

Conclusion (10 Minutes): 

The team comes back together, and consultants discuss how to transfer their learning to writing center consultations supporting graduate writers across disciplinary fields. The workshop leaders prompt consultants with questions highlighting and summarizing the learning outcomes: (1) How did consulting published disciplinary research writing help you to provide feedback on the writer’s disciplinary writing? (2) What rhetorical features did you discuss in your session(s), and how did reviewing examples of those specific features in published writing from the writer’s field inform your session? (3) How did you help the writer to transfer this learning into their own writing? Consultants are encouraged to share an example or two for each question as time permits. 

The workshop leaders share a selection of the following resources with the consultants either at the end of the workshop or as a follow-up message to encourage their continued engagement:

Elsevier. (2026). Researcher academy. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/.

Georgia College and State University Writing Center. (2026). Student resources: Writing in the disciplines. https://www.gcsu.edu/writingcenter/student-resources.

Purdue Owl. (2026). Graduate writing. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/graduate_writing/.

University of New Hampshire Connors Writing Center. (n.d.) Using a mentor text. https://www.unh.edu/student-success/sites/default/files/media/2023-12/mentor-texts.pdf. 

Yale University Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. (2026). Writing resources for graduate students. https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/writing/writing-resources-for-graduate-students.

ASSESSING FOR UNDERSTANDING

In our Writing Center, we gathered formative assessment data for this workshop in three ways. First, the director gathered data by circulating during the mock tutoring to assess consultants’ ability to scaffold active-reading sessions for research writing. The director paid attention to consultants’ and writers’ collaborative goal setting for the session and their transitioning from discussion of the writer’s draft into active reading of a published source and back to applications in the writer’s own text. 

As this type of writing consultation may not be especially common in a writing center, depending on the center’s student population, observing these mock consultations may be one of the most effective and efficient ways of gathering and responding to formative assessment data. Workshop leaders may provide immediate feedback during the mock tutoring or share a short rubric afterward. Feedback could focus on the consultant’s negotiation and goal setting, their transition into and scaffolding of critical reading, and the writer’s application of insights from their critical reading. Note that the rubric variant will require multiple workshop facilitators but could provide more detailed feedback and assessment data.

In our center’s implementation of this workshop, the next opportunity for gathering holistic assessment data in the form of overall tutor reflections was through the end-of-workshop full-group discussion. This full group activity allowed tutors to share their thoughts and questions related to the practices that we workshopped during mock tutoring, and it gave the director a sense of whether additional training would be helpful and, if so, what to address in more detail. Later, in our weekly announcements email, the director also shared a Google Doc and asked tutors to share their follow-up reflections and questions related to this workshop. One possible area of reflection could be how this workshop both prepares consultants to support research writing consultations and provides professional development for consultants in disciplinary conventions across different fields. Consultants could also identify one rhetorical feature they feel prepared to analyze, helping them to connect back with the workshop learning objectives.

Additional assessment data may be available through client report forms. For instance, the director may look for links to relevant scholarly articles in report forms for active reading sessions. In the case of appointments that request research writing support in the appointment form, directors may target those sessions for additional observations and feedback.

Two-Session Workshop

For a two-hour session or two one-hour sessions, consultants can extend the activity by consulting multiple articles. The modeling process varies according to the discipline of the article involved. In two 30-minute sessions, consultants can practice locating rhetorical conventions both in their field and in another discipline. In the first session, consultants would use an article from their own works cited page in their own field. In the second session, if a consultant initially served as the student writer for the mock consultation, they would then serve as the consultant. In this second session, students should work with a sample of writing from outside their own field of expertise, supplied by the professional development team. This valuable practice gives consultants in the workshop the opportunity to practice these skills further and to solidify their knowledge.

Professional Development for Advanced Consultants

An extension for more advanced tutors or tutors who have done this exercise previously is to stretch their abilities with sources and student assignments even further outside their comfort zone. As the introductory-level workshop may more frequently address MLA or APA style, depending on the center’s writers, consultants may not have completed the workshop with attention to other styles. This extension can have many variants, tailored to the needs of the tutor and the center:

• Technical writing, in formats such as IEEE or AMA
• Sources published over five years ago or using in an earlier format 
• Blog posts, webpages, social media posts, and other genres
• Abstracts
• Sources that are from another country or have been translated from another language

Consider what students usually work on at your institution, and what kinds of sources they may bring in outside the scholarly articles. Tutors can familiarize themselves with what stays consistent and what changes between different genres, just as in the base lesson module, but with far more radical applications of the technique to better prepare them for a greater range of student work.

Supporting Dissertation-Stage Students

A similar workshop can be provided for scaffolding active reading consultations for dissertating graduate students. This adaptation is best for supporting graduate students who are beginning their dissertation process, such as those students who are preparing a proposal or creating a full project outline. Rather than analyzing one or two articles from the graduate writer’s works cited, instead consultants would practice scaffolding active reading of dissertations from the writer’s field of study. In some cases, universities even have archives of previous successful dissertations that are searchable based on field, keywords, or even dissertation advisor. In their mock tutorial, consultants could practice helping a writer to locate relevant dissertations, collaboratively reviewing the table of contents to help with planning an outline, and reviewing other features of the document based on writer questions. 

Supporting Graduate Researchers from Diverse Fields

An extension of this exercise that supports students from fields outside the humanities and social sciences is to provide an article from a different field as this exercise can be completed in any field. For the mock tutorial, the consultants acting as tutor and writer will review an article provided by the director instead of an article they located from their own works cited page. They will need to review technical writing conventions and stay away from interpreting graphical, statistical, and quantitative data and charts and content.

Scaffolding Active Reading Asynchronously

Another version of this workshop could help to prepare consultants to offer asynchronous rhetorical reading sessions. In this case, consultants would rely on disciplinary information shared in the appointment form or in drafts of materials that the writer shared. For this kind of session, a professional development workshop variant could focus on scaffolding asynchronous support for graduate research writing. The consultant would review writer questions in a sample appointment form or draft document. Questions pertaining to organization or related issues could prompt feedback from the consultant about the value of active reading. The consultant could practice finding an article in the writer’s works cited, especially one that the writer discusses in more detail or that appears to be critical to the writer’s research. The consultant could then share in-text comments or typed comments or annotations for that article and the writer’s research paper draft, providing questions and notes that make connections and contrasts between the published source and the writer’s article draft, and encouraging the writer to use the published article as a model.

RESOURCES & REFERENCES

RefeRENCES

Adams, G. T. (2016). The line that should not be drawn: Writing centers as reading centered. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 16(1), 73–90.

Aull, L., & Shapiro, S. (2025). Critical language awareness (CLA) reading: Radical (and rhetorical) engagement with texts. In G. Park et al. (Eds.), Radical inclusivity: Critical language awareness in the language and writing classroom (pp. 35–51). Channel View Publications.

Carillo, E. C. (2017). Reading with purpose in the writing center. WLN: A Journal of Writing, 41(7-8), 17-24. DOI: 10.37514/WLN-J.2017.41.7.04

Elsevier. (2026). Researcher academy. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/

Georgia College and State University Writing Center. (2026). Student resources: Writing in the disciplines. https://www.gcsu.edu/writingcenter/student-resources

King, C. M. (2018). Tutors as readers: Reprising the role of reading in the writing center. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 16(1), 63–74.

King, C. M., & Boeshart Burelle, M. (2025). Reading beyond the surface: Training writing tutors to cultivate rhetorical source use. Center Moves: A Peer-Reviewed Archive of Tutor Training Materials, 4(1). https://rmwca.wildapricot.org/page-18278

Phillips, T. and R. Ryerson. (2022, Jan.) Supporting the growth of graduate writers: film. Michigan English Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.12391573.cmp.2

Purdue Owl. (2026). Graduate writing. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/graduate_writing/

University of New Hampshire Connors Writing Center. (n.d.) Using a mentor text. https://www.unh.edu/student-success/sites/default/files/media/2023-12/mentor-texts.pdf

Yale University Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. (2026). Writing resources for graduate students. https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/writing/writing-resources-for-graduate-students

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Phillips, T. and R. Ryerson. (2022, Jan.) Supporting the growth of graduate writers: film. Michigan English Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.12391573.cmp.2

University of New Hampshire Connors Writing Center. (n.d.) Using a mentor text. https://www.unh.edu/student-success/sites/default/files/media/2023-12/mentor-texts.pdf

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Salena Anderson

Georgia Southern University (Statesboro) 

Salena Anderson is an assistant professor of English and the Writing Center director at Georgia Southern University (Statesboro). She teaches courses in first-year writing, AI literacy, and linguistics, and her research and teaching interests include second language writing, writing assessment, writing center programming, and critical AI literacy. Her research has appeared in journals such as WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, Computers and Composition, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, INTESOL, American Speech, and English Studies.

Grace Brannen

Georgia Southern University (Statesboro) 

Grace Brannen is an undergraduate student in the History program at Georgia Southern University. They have been at the university Writing Center for three years and participated in the IWCA Collaborative @ CCCC and the Georgia International Conference on Information Literacy, presenting on AI literacy and supporting graduate research. They focus their own research on food history, particularly the intersection of food culture and art. They have a passion for exploring what education can look like outside a classroom setting, both for developing writers and budding historians. When not reading for work, they’re reading for fun: it never ends.

Amy Crutchfield

Georgia Southern University (Statesboro) 

Amy Crutchfield is a graduate student studying English literature. She is in her second semester of tutoring in the Writing Center and presented on writing center tutoring at the annual 2026 IWCA @ CCCC conference. She has a BA in English and chose to pursue her master’s degree to teach literature at the college level. She is interested in teaching in the community college setting because she was a nontraditional student who attended community college at the start of her undergraduate career. Amy is interested in women’s literature, especially stories and poetry that center around embodiment and finding one’s voice amidst adversity. When she’s not studying, she indulges in reading fantasy novels, painting, watching Studio Ghibli films, and walking in the woods. Her hope is to stress the importance of student agency and to encourage students to find their voice through the study of stories.

Grace Morrison

Georgia Southern University (Statesboro) 

Grace Morrison is a graduate student at Georgia Southern University and is working towards her M.A. in English. She is currently in her second semester at the university’s Writing Center and has presented on supporting graduate research at the 2026 IWCA @ CCCC and on AI literacy at the 2026 Georgia International Conference on Information Literacy. She intends to pursue a doctoral degree after the completion of her master’s she will continue to explore her interest in teaching college English courses, especially first-year composition studies. Grace’s research focuses on gender and rhetoric in film and graphic novels and its intersection with technical communication.

Anderson, Brannen, Crutchfield, and Morrison, Center Moves, no. 6 (Special Issue), September 2026.