U.S. Writing Center Theory and Practice: Implications for ...
Transcript of U.S. Writing Center Theory and Practice: Implications for ...
U.S. Writing Center Theory and Practice:
Implications for Writing Centers in Japanese Universities
Mayumi Fujioka
In Japan, writing centers affiliated with universities have been established over the past
few years and have started serving as a place to improve students' English writing. Those
who are interested in writing centers, either administrators or instructors, have been trying
to gather information about geographically isolated writing centers (e.g., Johnston, Cornwell,
& Yoshida, 2010). In fact, one result of those unifying efforts resulted in the establishment of
the Japan Writing Center Symposium (Nihon Writing Center Kenkyuukai) in 2008, which
became the Writing Centers Association of Japan (WCAJ) in 2011. In 2009 there were at
least 11 writing centers in Japan (Johnston, 2009). Despite its current small number, the
sheer number of writing centers in Japanese universities is expected to increase. However,
under their starting period, there are many issues to be considered toward the sound and
productive operation of writing centers in Japan. The purpose of this paper is to review the
theory and practice of university writing centers in the United States, which have a long
history with a substantial body of literature on theory, research, and practice, in the hope of
illuminating some of the key issues to be considered for successful implementation of writing
centers in Japan.
The paper consists of three main sections: U.S. writing centers, second language (L2)
writing center studies, and writing centers in Japan, with several subsections under each. The
discussion in the first two sections concerns U.S. writing center theory and practice, based on
the review of the relevant literature in the field supplemented by a report of my experience
visiting two U.S. writing centers during my overseas research leave from August 2010 to
August 2011. The last section reports on the current situation of writing centers in Japan and
addresses the issues to be considered for future implementation of writing centers.
— 205 —
ft* • 1-111fiffft —CV
U.S. Writing Centers
History and Overview
Although there are differences in the administration and operation of U.S. universities,
the central practice of U.S. writing centers is that students, either undergraduate or graduate,
bring a piece of writing they produce for their university courses and in some cases for their
theses and dissertations to the university writing center and receive individualized assistance
on their writing from tutors. Meetings with tutors are usually appointment based with some
cases of walk-ins depending on their availability. It is totally up to students how often they
want to visit the writing center and receive help; some only come once for a small portion of
their writing and never come back. Others frequently or regularly utilize writing center
assistance on different portions of the same piece of writing or on entirely different papers. In
some cases, these students meet with the same tutor many times. The body of students
which writing centers serve is mainly first language (L1) English students. However, second
language (L2) English writers who seek help at writing centers in U.S. universities are
increasing, and the issue of L2 writing center studies will be discussed in a separate section in
this paper.
According to Carter-Tod (1995), the oldest known university writing center in the U.S.
was at the University of Iowa, called a writing lab at that time, which was established before
1935. Writing centers or labs in the U.S. then increased in the 1950s and expanded in the
1970s (Carino, 2002), and they can now be found in most major universities in the U.S.
(Williams, 2005). Furthermore, today there is an enormous body of literature on writing
center research and practice, with two major dedicated journals in the field: Writing Center
Journal and Writing Lab Newsletter. There are also numerous articles published in major U.S.
research journals.
Types of U.S. Writing Centers
Regarding writing centers' relationships with universities, Carter-Tod (1995) identifies
three main types of affiliation: (1) ones directly under the university English department; (2)
ones with no affiliations with any department in the university, and (3) ones connected with
other learning centers in the university (e.g., math learning center). The first type of writing
centers, those which are connected with the English Department of the university, were
established based on the fact that the English Department is usually responsible for
undergraduate writing instruction, offering freshman English composition courses. As a result,
— 206 —
Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan
those freshmen who take required English courses often visit the writing center to seek
assistance on their writing for the course. In fact, Carino (2002) points out that the group of
students who need writing center assistance most is the "struggling freshman" (p. 103), who
encounters difficulty adapting to written academic discourse and rhetoric required at the
college-level.
The second type of writing centers with no affiliations with any department in the
university can be seen in the example of Writing Tutorial Services (WTS) at Indiana
University, from which I graduated. Having the director who supervises the overall tutorial
services, the Indiana University WTS program offers services to all kinds of students,
undergraduates and graduates with both Ll and L2 English backgrounds. For example, in
the academic year 2009-2010, over 75,000 tutorials with 250 to 300 sessions every week were
offered at Indiana University's main campus, which has a total student enrollment of
approximately 35,000 (J. Vogt, personal communication, October 11, 2010).
Finally, an example of the third type of writing centers, the ones affiliated with
university learning centers, is offered by Idaho State University, where I conducted writing
center research during my overseas research leave. The Idaho State University Writing
Center is part of the Student Success Center, which is a university-wide academic support
center. Other than the Writing Center, this academic support center offers tutorial assistance
programs to students in such areas as math, content areas, and English as a Second Language
(ESL). In the academic year 2008-2009, with a population of approximately 12,000 students on
the main campus, the Idaho State University Writing Center offered a total of about 1,600
hours of tutoring (Le Corbeiller, 2010).
Writing Center Goals and Instructional Perspectives
As I mentioned earlier, writing centers in U.S. universities started in the 1930s and
expanded from the 1950s to the 1970s. According to Carino (2002), the main goal of those
early day writing centers was to help Ll English writers who had problems with basic areas
of writing, including grammar and punctuation and thus to assist in preparing them for
university education by teaching them standard English. This focus on remediation was
replaced by a larger focus to help students develop as writers with appropriate writing
strategies. According to North (1984), new writing centers after the 1970s represent two
robust instructional perspectives, which include process-oriented and student-centered
approaches. The process-oriented approach, which is now widely practiced in both Ll and L2
— 207 —
R* • 1-111ffilk
writing instruction, views writing as a process from generating ideas and drafting to final
editing with an emphasis on multiple revisions (see Casanave, 2004 for the history and details
of process writing approaches). This approach thus shifts the instructional focus away from
the mere corrections of the product. The student-centered approach emphasizes writers'
development in learning effective strategies they can transfer to various writing contexts.
North (1984) succinctly expresses the essence of those two instructional principles as follows:
in a writing center the object is to make sure that writers, and not necessarily
their texts, are what get changed by instruction. In axiom form it goes like this:
Our job is to produce better writers, not better writing. (p. 438)
North's notion of "better writers, not better writing" is in fact often cited in Ll writing center
literature, and furthermore it is "almost unanimously agreed upon by the most writing center
administrators" (Carter-Tod, 1995, p. 37).
Another major operational principle governing writing center theory and practice is
collaborative learning, the root of which traces to Bruffee (1984) in that learning can be
facilitated through interaction between peers who share similar experiences and backgrounds.
This emphasis on learning between peers makes one common model of writing centers, that
is, using students as tutors (Williams, 2005). This collaborative learning between peers, along
with the two instructional perspectives of process-orientation and emphasis on student
learning has created a distinctive instructional approach at writing centers. Under the
collaborative learning principle, tutors are generally expected to adopt a friendly peer role
rather than an authoritative teacher role. Moreover, tutors are usually encouraged to take a
nondirective approach, which means asking students questions to help them find answers to
problems in their writing rather than telling students how they should change specific words
and sentences (Carino, 2002; Powers, 1993). These instructional principles and approaches are
the basis for writing center tutoring practice with Ll English writers.
Tutor Population and Training
As discussed in the previous section, one common model of U.S. writing centers is using
students as tutors. Those student tutors are called peer tutors, who are both undergraduates
and graduate students at the universities with which writing centers are affiliated. According
to Carter-Tod (1995), there is another group of tutors called professional tutors, who are
usually not students but those with advanced education or degrees in writing theory and
instruction. Although there are differences in tutor populations at different writing centers,
— 208 —
Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan
peer tutors seem to be more common than instructional tutors. At Idaho State University, for
example, among 15 tutors in the academic year 2010-2011, 12 were peer tutors who were
undergraduate and graduate students mostly from the English Department. Three were
what they call "instructional tutors" who were faculty members with masters' degrees
teaching writing. At Indiana University, however, in the Fall Semester of 2010, all the 36
tutors were either undergraduate or graduate students from various disciplines at the
university, and there were no professional tutors.
The instructional principles of writing centers discussed earlier, which emphasize the
process rather than the product and collaborative learning through questions and answers,
are reflected overfly in the written guidelines for tutors at both Indiana University and Idaho
State University. Despite the common instructional perspectives, the two universities slightly
differ in their peer tutor training programs. At Indiana University, with its large student
population, potential undergraduate tutors are interviewed, and those who are selected are
required to take a course on writing theory and practice in the spring semester. Furthermore,
those who do well in the course are allowed to start working as a tutor in the following fall
semester. Graduate tutors, who are selected based on interviews, are not required to take a
course, but they need to participate in four-hour training sessions in every semester as their
undergraduate counterparts do.
At Idaho State University, no tutor training courses are offered, but three tutor training
sessions in each semester are offered. In the training sessions in the 2010-2011 academic year,
all of which I attended, tutors were asked to read articles on tutoring practices, comment on
portions of sample student writings, and exchange opinions and contribute to the discussion.
Furthermore, one full training session in each semester was devoted to citation practices, the
in-text citations and reference styles according to the APA Manual, in particular. This training
activity reflected the need for tutors to familiarize themselves with the APA style, with which
their tutees (student writers) in various disciplines frequently request assistance.
Beyond the common instructional principles, the content in students' writings in their
specific disciplines matters in writing tutoring sessions. In order to improve the quality of
tutorial assistance, the Indiana University WTS program offers matching of students (tutees)
and tutors in the same or close areas of discipline, such as engineering, law, and physics.
However, due to the time conflicts between the tutee and the tutor for potential appointments,
this matching is not always possible (J. Vogt, personal communication, October. 11, 2010). At
Idaho State University, no such matching efforts between tutees and tutors are executed due
— 209 —
• 1-111ffilk
to the relatively small population size of tutors and their predominant disciplinary affiliation
with the English Department However, minimal efforts of matching are made in such a case
when a doctoral student working on a dissertation is matched with a doctoral student tutor,
not an undergraduate tutor.
In summary, despite some differences in student and tutor populations and tutor
training at different universities, writing centers in the U.S. operate on major principles of
process-oriented and student-centered approaches that are realized through collaborative
learning between peers. These operational principles, however, are based on the perspective
of assisting Ll English writers (native speakers of English who were educated in the U.S),
and thus there are issues and concerns as to whether L2 English writers who visit writing
centers should be assisted in the same way as Ll English writers. The next section reports
studies that address L2 students in U.S. writing centers. The relevant studies are introduced
under two major categories: theories on appropriate writing center instructional strategies for
L2 English writers and empirical studies that document what occurs in writing center
tutoring sessions with L2 students.
L2 Writing Center Studies
Appropriate Tutoring Strategies with L2 English Writers
In the early 1990s, writing centers in U.S. universities started facing an emerging
population of L2 English writers with various linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The
encounter with L2 English writers, who are in many ways different from Ll English writers,
prompted many scholars' discussions and suggestions for appropriate tutoring strategies for
L2 English writers (e.g., Kennedy, 1993; Harris & Silva, 1993; Powers, 1993; Severino, 1993;
Thonus, 1993). Harris and Silva (1993), for example, noted L2 English writers' unfamiliarity
with and confusion over collaborative peer tutoring styles at U.S. writing centers when those
L2 students came from cultural and educational backgrounds with expectations of
authoritative teacher roles. Thus, Harris and Silva suggested the need for writing center
tutors to assume the role of "tellers" (1993, p. 533) to some extent. Similarly, Powers (1993)
claimed that what she called the "Socratic" (p. 40) approach in tutoring through questions
and answers, which seemed to work well with Ll English writers, was not effective with L2
English writers. Thus, she suggested a more directive and more didactic approach to L2
writers by tutors being cultural informants in that they specifically show L2 writers what
expected U.S. academic discourse should look like.
— 210 —
Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan
Powers's (1993) call for a more directive tutoring approach to L2 English writers
stimulated many scholars' subsequent discussion on effective tutoring with L2 writers. The
directive tutoring approach included explicit grammar and language instruction, which was
discouraged for Ll English writers. Blau and Hall (2002) supported the directive approach
with L2 writers, but they emphasized the balancing of global (the meaning) and local (e.g.,
grammar, word-choice, and punctuation) issues in L2 tutoring practice. Disagreeing with the
directive approach, Cogie, Strain, and Lorinskas (1999) promoted the idea of teaching L2
English writers self-editing strategies in tutoring sessions in order to help them function
independently as writers. Myers (2003), on the other hand, opposed to the idea of teaching
self-editing strategies, endorsing explicit language instruction for L2 English writers by
claiming that the teaching of grammar was part of a tutor's job as cultural informant.
The discussion on effective tutoring practice with L2 English writers has continued to
the present date, and the recent discussion includes theories from wider disciplines including
Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Cogie (2006), for example, connects writing center
research and SLA theories by addressing the value of L2 writers' active participation in
tutoring sessions as a way to facilitate their second language acquisition processes. Bell and
Youmans (2006) bring the Politeness Theory discussed in sociolinguistics into writing center
discourse with L2 English writers. Pointing out L2 English writers' unfamiliarity with
expected politeness discourse strategies from praise to criticism employed by Ll English
tutors, Bell and Youmans suggest making this cultural practice of politeness more visible to
L2 English writers, as well as raising Ll tutors' awareness of their linguistic cultural politeness
strategies. Williams (2002) also explores insights from SLA research in L2 writing center
studies, and Williams and Severino (2004) further discuss the potentials of future L2 writing
center studies with a wider variety of disciplines including psychology, education, and
linguistics.
L2 Writing Center Empirical Studies
L2 writing center studies have also been evolving with the emergence of empirical
research, that is, documentation of what actually happens in writing center tutoring sessions
with L2 English writers. Among those empirical studies, those conducted by Thonus (1999a,b,
2002, 2004) have greatly contributed to the field by illuminating salient discourse features in
interactions between tutors and tutees. Some of those features include tutor-dominant
discourse patterns with both Ll and L2 tutees (Thonus, 1999a, 2004), politeness discourse
—211 —
ft* • 1-111fifflk
strategies employed by tutors (Thonus, 1999b), and components of successful tutorial practice
perceived by tutors and tutees (Thonus, 2002). Furthermore, Thonus (2001) investigated the
perceptions of the tutors' role by tutors, tutees, and course instructors and found little
consensus among those three parties. As one of the implications from her study, Thonus
(2001) emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence to discuss tutoring practice, not
through anecdotal evidence or prescriptive views of how tutorial practice should be. The
emphasis on empirical evidence through descriptions of tutor-tutee interactions is also carried
over in subsequent studies of writing center discourse including a tutee's advising-resisting
by Waring (2005) from a Conversation Analysis (CA) perspective, and a study by Williams
(2005) on an identification of fixed yet negotiated roles between tutors and tutees toward
tutor dominance and authority.
L2 writing center empirical studies have also started documenting writing center
practice other than tutor-tutee interactions. Williams (2004), for example, investigated the
relationship between tutoring talk and tutees' post-tutoring revisions on their drafts and found
that the focus of the revision was usually motivated by the focus of the discussion during the
tutoring sessions. Weigle and Nelson (2004) added to the literature by investigating novice
tutors' development and their negotiated roles with their tutees in the context of tutoring as
part of a graduate L2 writing theory and practice course required for the tutors. More
recently, Nakamaru's (2010) study focusing on lexical issues of L2 writing tutoring has
expanded the scope of the field which tended to be dominated by grammar issues.
In addition to the increasing number of studies documenting L2 writing center practice,
the field has also started recognizing the issues of diversity among L2 English writers who
seek writing center help. The prevalent notion of L2 English writers is those students who
have completed high school and/or undergraduate university education in their home
countries and have received formal English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education back
home. Another group of L2 English writers who have been receiving increasing attention is
the so called Generation 1.5 students, who came to the U.S. at a relatively young age, have
developed good listening and speaking skills in English, but have difficulty with advanced
academic writing skills. Several authors have noted the issues of those Generation 1.5 students
in writing center tutoring (Leki, 2009; Ritter & Sandvik, 2009; Thonus, 2003). The
aforementioned study by Nakamaru (2010) pays particular attention to the issue of
differences between Generation 1.5 writers, whom she calls "US-educated multilingual
writers" (p. 96) and traditional English as a Second Language (ESL) writers in her
— 212 —
Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan
investigation of lexical aspects of L2 writing center tutoring.
As shown in the section above, L2 writing center studies have been evolving in the
theoretical discussion on appropriate tutoring strategies with L2 writers and empirical studies
that document tutoring practice with L2 students and their writing issues. However, one
underexplored area of research about U.S. writing centers is assessment. Thonus (2003)
comments that writing center assessment is rarely connected with the assessment of student
writing in terms of change after the writing center tutoring session. Furthermore, Williams
(2004) claims that the writing center community even resists assessment of student writing
after the tutoring; they place more emphasis on the writing center conversation than the
outcomes of the tutoring. Based on the issues and questions that have arisen from U.S. writing
center studies with L2 English writers, the next section focuses on writing centers in Japan
with their current situation and issues to be addressed in future research and practice.
Writing Centers in Japan
Overview
Compared with U.S. writing centers that have been in existence for about 80 years,
writing centers in Japan have less than 10 years of history. According to Johnston, Cornwell,
and Yoshida (2010), in 2004 Waseda University established a writing center with its start of
the School of International Liberal Studies. In the same year, Osaka Jogakuin College
developed a once a week service of the writing clinic into a writing center with more
extended (six days a week) assistance. Since then the number of Japanese universities and
colleges which have started writing centers has increased to 11 in Japan as of 2009 (Johnston,
2009). Although little is known about the details of each of those writing centers, Johnston et
al. (2010) and Yoshida, Johnston, and Cornwell (2010), both of which are involved with the
same research project, provide an overview of writing centers in Japan in their beginning
period. In order to better understand the experience and the needs of the students utilizing
writing centers, Johnston, Cornwell, and Yoshida visited many domestic and overseas writing
centers from 2007 to 2009 and filed reports in the two studies mentioned above. The writing
centers they visited included four in Japan, three in the U.S., one Japanese branch of a U.S.
university in Japan, three in Korea and one in Singapore. The following discussion focuses on
the Japanese writing centers Johnston et al. studied in addition to some of the writing centers
which were launched after their study.
According to Johnston et al. (2010) and Yoshida et al. (2010), there is no one model
— 213 —
ft* • 1-111fifflk
among writing centers in Japan and each writing center offers assistance that matches the
needs of its students. Waseda University, for example, follows a peer tutoring model in which
trained Japanese graduate students and international students serve as peer tutors and assist
students from all the departments with English writing including term papers and theses.
According to the website of the Waseda University Writing Center ( "Writing Center
summary," 2011), they offer English-Japanese bilingual writing tutorials where students have
a choice to receive tutors' assistance in either English or Japanese. In addition, their writing
center also offers assistance in Japanese writing to both native-Japanese-speaking students
and international students. Osaka Jogakuin College, on the other hand, offers individual
writing tutoring conducted only in English by instructor tutors who are all native-English-
speaking full-time or part-time teachers at the college. They help students with various kinds
of course-related English writing such as summaries, essays, and papers. In 2008 the
University of Tokyo (Komaba Campus) started one-to-one writing consultations for students
enrolled in Active Learning of English for Science Students (ALESS) who seek help with
their writing assignments (see "ALESS," 2011 for more details). Other writing centers in
Japan studied by Johnston et al. include Sophia University, which offers a writing center
similar to the one in the U.S., and Kanda Gaigo Gakuin, the details of which were not reported.
For English writing assistance, Hays (2010) and Hays and Narita (2011) report a
program equivalent to a writing center, which they call the Writing Lounge at Tokyo
International University. The Writing Lounge, which started in 2008, follows a peer tutoring
model in which qualified students serve as peer tutors and help undergraduate students with
their English writing.
Some of the university writing centers in Japan which were established after the study
by Johnston et al. (2010) and Yoshida et al. (2010) specialize in helping students with
advanced academic writing skills in English. For example, Seisaku Kenkyu Daigakuin
Daigaku (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies or GRIPS) established an academic
writing center through which writing workshops and individual consultations are offered.
Their writing workshops focus on research writing skills including formulating research
questions, organizing ideas, incorporating source materials into writing, and using academic
writing conventions properly. Consequently, individual writing tutoring sessions also serve as
a place to help students with organization and logical thinking in their academic papers ( "The
Academic Writing Center at GRIPS," 2011). Similarly, Nagoya University established the
Meidai Academic Writing Unit in 2010 by setting a goal of promoting students' academic
— 214 —
Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan
publications. Under the Academic Writing Unit, courses are offered where students learn
logical thinking and how to write specific sections of an academic paper such as an abstract,
introduction, and conclusion. They also offer one-to-one basis writing tutorials on academic
papers or dissertations where students learn how to formulate thesis statements and build
their logical arguments. Those writing tutorials are offered by professors who are specialized
in logical thinking skills and academic writing in English, French, German, and Chinese ( "Mei-
writing site," 2011).
Except for Waseda University and Nagoya University, all the writing center programs
introduced so far are mainly concerned with providing assistance for Japanese students'
English writing. However, there are universities that have writing centers to assist Japanese
students with Japanese writing. For example, Kanazawa Kogyo University offers
individualized assistance for various kinds of Japanese writing, including editing for students'
essays and papers for course assignments and purpose statements and Curriculum Vitas
(CVs) for job applications (Yoshida et al., 2010). Similarly, Tsuda College, which advocates
producing independent writers through writing center tutoring, offers consultation for
Japanese writing for both class assignments and job applications although they do not offer
editorial services (Yoshida et al., 2010).
To conclude the writing centers in Japan they studied, Yoshida et al. (2010) emphasize
that there is a common educational principle among them despite the differences in the target
student population and the kinds of assistance they provide. The common principle is the
view of writing centers as a place to help students become independent writers and also
develop their ideas through writing. This principle seems to coincide with the agreed upon
principle of U.S. writing centers, that is, the idea of better writers, not better products based
on North (1984) as introduced earlier. While the basic educational principle of U.S. writing
centers may be easily introduced to writing centers in Japan, there seem to be many issues
to be considered for the sound and effective implementation of writing centers and student
writing development. Among those issues, the next section focuses on two major issues:
collaborative tutoring practice and process approach to writing. These two issues are related
to the fundamental educational principles of U.S. writing centers discussed in an earlier
section of this study. The following discussion addresses how those two educational
perspectives from U.S. writing centers can be effectively practiced in writing centers in Japan.
— 215 —
• 1-111ffilk
Collaborative Learning with Peer Tutors
As discussed earlier, there has been a great deal of discussion on appropriate tutoring
strategies with L2 English writers in U.S. writing centers. Some claim the ineffectiveness of
the collaborative tutoring practice, in which peer tutors are discouraged from telling answers
and solutions to the questions and problems student writers have with their writing, and
attribute the problem to the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of L2 writers. More
specifically, some L2 writers may not be familiar with the collaborative learning environment
with peers due to their cultural backgrounds where teachers are the authority providing
them with answers and solutions (Harris & Silva, 1993). In addition, more intervention is
necessary for tutoring L2 English writers than Ll writers because they are not familiar with
expected U.S. academic discourse (Powers, 1993). Thus, both Harris and Silva and Powers
suggest that writing center tutors assume more teacher roles with L2 English students and
take a more directive approach in telling them how they should change their writing.
The problems with the collaborative tutoring practice with L2 English students have
been pointed out by some authors in the context of writing centers in Japan and possible
solutions have been suggested. Hays (2010), for example, characterizes Japanese university
education as teacher-centered, and consequently he assumes that Japanese peer tutors are
playing the role of tellers instead of collaborators due to their cultural backgrounds. Despite
the Japanese cultural and educational background, Hays also claims that tutors should try to
minimize the telling part of their job only when it is appropriate. As Powers (1993) advocates
a more directive approach with L2 English students in the U.S., Yasuda (2006) suggests a
directive and corrective approach as an alternate way of writing center tutoring in Japan. In
order to make the directive approach effective, Yasuda emphasizes that explanation should
be added when tutors change students' writing for example, the removal of a sentence should
be accompanied by explanations including the irrelevance to the topic sentence or
redundancy.
While concurring that a more directive approach may be appropriate for Japanese
students, the collaborative learning approach as a source of confusion for Japanese students
might need to be viewed critically. Despite Hays's (2010) characterization of Japanese
university education as teacher-centered, Japanese students have been increasingly exposed
to group work including peer response activities in English writing classes and group projects
and presentations in content-area courses. Thus, Japanese students may not resist the idea of
learning from peers, and collaborative writing center practice may work effectively depending
— 216 —
Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan
on the students' prior experience working with peers. More importantly, writing center
practice should be reviewed and improved based on the responses of students who utilize
writing center assistance. To obtain student responses and describe writing center tutoring,
empirical writing center studies need to be conducted in the Japanese context.
Although there has been little empirical research done on writing center tutoring
practice in Japan so far, there are some studies which show positive responses from writing
center users. Based on the questionnaire results of students who utilized the writing center
(the Writing Lounge) at Tokyo International University, Hays (2010) reported that students
on average responded positively to their experience in the writing tutoring. Furthermore,
those students were found to be satisfied with the friendly attitude of the peer tutors and the
kinds of help they received from the tutors. Hays and Narita (2011) further investigated the
effectiveness of the Writing Lounge by conducting a case study of one Japanese student
struggling with a five-paragraph English essay as a course assignment and reported her L2
writing development and change in attitude as she utilized the Writing Lounge assistance. In
the same study, Hays and Narita also reported excerpts of tutor and tutee comments
regarding their tutoring experiences. Their comments reveal positive learning experiences
both as a tutor and a tutee, as well as the challenging aspects of tutoring. Some of the
difficulties peer tutors encountered include the failure to understand students' perceived areas
of problems in their writing and self-doubts about their effectiveness as a tutor. Tutees also
expressed concerns such as difficulty explaining in English their specific problems with
writing, and the sense of embarrassment of being helped with their writing. Those comments
from both tutors and tutees are valuable resources for the improved practice of writing
center tutoring, and more empirical studies with tutor and tutee responses through
questionnaires, interviews, and observations need to be conducted.
Process Approach to Writing
Besides the collaborative learning approach, another salient issue of bringing U.S.
writing center principles into the Japanese context is the process-centered approach.
According to Kobayashi and Rinnert (2002, as cited in Yasuda, 2006), Japanese students lack
academic writing training both in Ll and L2 up until the point when they enter universities.
The lack of academic literacy training means not only academic writing conventions including
thesis statements or topic sentences but also critical thinking skills and finding outside sources
and incorporating the information from the sources into their writing. Besides these
— 217 —
• 1-111ffilk
components for academic writing skills, Japanese students probably do not hold the view of
writing as a process and that they lack experience engaging in the practice of a writing
process from generating ideas, drafting, and final editing with multiple revisions in between.
Consequently, Japanese students may hold the view that the first draft could and should be
the final draft or that a good piece of writing consists of error-free sentences and thus they
should be only concerned with grammatical correctness.
This view of writing as a product and as a collection of error-free sentences can make a
significant impact on the attitude of students when they utilize writing centers. They may be
frustrated when their main concern is to get grammatical mistakes corrected while their
tutors address such issues as clarity of ideas or organization, as briefly reported by Hays
(2010). In order for students to get optimal benefits from writing center tutoring, it is
necessary to help them develop the view of writing as a process and engage in the process
approach outside writing center tutoring sessions. The process-oriented practice of writing
should be encouraged and exercised in content-area courses as well as in English writing
courses.
The process-oriented approach could be realized without a great deal of difficulty in
English writing classes. Students can learn to modify their ideas and earlier drafts as they
receive feedback from the teacher and their peers in such areas as the clarity of ideas,
organization, and audience awareness (see Liu & Hansen, 2002 for resources for an effective
practice of peer response activities on L2 writing). If students have a positive experience with
the process-approach of writing in their regular English writing classes, it is easier for them
to transfer this to their experience in writing center tutoring sessions.
In addition to promoting the process approach of writing in English writing classes, it is
beneficial to students if the process approach is incorporated into their disciplinary content-
area courses conducted in Japanese. Japanese university students engage in many writing
assignments including research papers in their disciplinary courses and theses. Despite the
fact that they write those academic papers in their native language, their writing
demonstrates many problems such as clarity of ideas. Moreover, according to Sadoshima
(2011), one of the serious problems with Japanese students' academic writing in Japanese is a
lack of proper citations, due to the lack of Ll academic writing training mentioned earlier.
Thus, Japanese students need to be taught academic writing conventions in their Li, and as
part of their Ll academic literacy training the process approach should be incorporated. If
students understand the concept of the process approach and develop the necessary writing
— 218 —
Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan
skills in 1,1, they will transfer this experience more easily to their L2 English writing and
consequently their writing center sessions may become more meaningful.
However, promoting the teaching of writing and the process approach in disciplinary
courses is not an easy task. In this regard, Yasuda (2006) emphasizes the role of writing
centers in facilitating a campus-wide program in raising the faculty's awareness of the
importance of writing and providing them with practical ideas to help students develop their
academic writing skills. Based on the idea of a partnership between writing centers and
Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) in U.S. universities through which writing centers
offer workshops for faculty members to learn how to create and grade writing assignments
effectively, Yasuda suggests that writing centers in Japanese universities take a central role
of developing a campus-wide writing environment so that all the faculty members take
responsibility for helping students develop academic writing skills through course
assignments.
In addition to the faculty's involvement in a campus-wide writing program, writing
centers can provide invited lectures and workshops by guest speakers such as journalists or
novelists in order to raise students' awareness of writing as a form of communication and
writing as a process. In Japan, Tsuda College has been active in offering those invited
workshops about Japanese writing through their writing center, and their program could
provide a good example of a writing center's role in promoting a campus-wide writing
program (see "Tsuda Writing Center," 2011 for more details).
In summary, the educational perspectives of collaborative learning with peers and the
process approach to writing, on which U.S. writing centers operate, can be smoothly
transferred to the context of writing centers in Japan, if students have enough experience
learning from peers and engaging in the process approach of writing outside writing center
tutoring sessions. In order to provide students with academic writing experience, not only
English writing courses but disciplinary courses need to offer opportunities for students to
engage in learning necessary academic writing skills including expected structures of writing
and the process of writing. This means that promoting students' academic writing skills is a
mission in which all the faculty members, both those teaching English writing and those
teaching disciplinary courses in Japanese, need to be involved. For that mission, writing
centers should take responsibility in leading and guiding the campus-wide writing program.
— 219 —
• I1-111,!filkil.--./
Conclusion
Writing centers in U.S. universities, with their many years of history, have evolved from
a place of remedial education to a place to promote students' development as writers. The
idea of the writing center as a place for promoting students' learning through writing applies
to the basic concept of writing centers in Japan. However, with their short history writing
centers in Japan have many issues to be considered for their successful implementation. As
key issues for effective writing center practice, collaborative learning with peers and the
process approach to writing were discussed. Those educational perspectives govern U.S.
writing center practice as well, yet writing centers in Japan may need to adjust and modify
those educational principles based on students' cultural and educational backgrounds and
their needs to utilize writing centers. At the same time, Japanese university education needs
to change in such a way as to make students' learning experience match that in the writing
centers. Moreover, writing centers are expected to serve as a liaison to create a campus-wide
learning environment for students' learning through writing. Although writing centers in
Japan are still in their starting period, it is crucial for administrators and faculty members to
have a critical view of what to learn from U.S. writing center theory and practice and how to
apply the knowledge gained from U.S. writing center studies to the development of writing
centers in Japan.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor Charles Clark and Professor David Dalsky for their
valuable comments and suggestions on the earlier versions of this manuscript and my two
anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments and constructive feedback.
— 220 —
Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan
References
ALESS (Active Learning of English for Science Students), the University of Tokyo.
(2011). Retrieved from http://aless.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/?page_id=190
Bell, D., & Youmans, M. (2006). Politeness and praise: Rhetorical issues in ESL (L2)
writing center conferences. Writing Center Journal, 26, 31-47.
Blau, S., & Hall, J. (2002). Guilt-free tutoring: Rethinking how we tutor non-native
English speaking students. Wring Center Journal, 23, 23-44.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "conversation of mankind." College
English, 46, 635-652.
Carino, P. (2002). Reading our own words: Rhetorical analysis and the institutional
discourse of writing centers. In P. Gillespie, A. Gillam, L. F. Brown, & B. Stay
(Eds.), Writing center research: Extending the conversation. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carter-Tod, S. (1995). The role of the writing center in the writing practices of L2
students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (AAT 9606230).
Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and
decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press.
Cogie, J. (2006). ESL student participation in writing center sessions. Writing Center
Journal, 26, 48-66.
Cogie, J., Strain, K., & Lorinskas, S. (1999). Avoiding the proofreading trap: The value of
the error correction process. Writing Center Journal, 19, 7-32.
Harris, M., & Silva, T. (1993). Tutoring ESL students: Issues and options. College
Composition and Communication, 44, 525-537.
Hays, G. (2010). Learners helping learners in an EFL writing center. In A. M. Stoke
(Ed.), JALT 2009 Conference Proceeding, 1-8. Tokyo: Japan Association for
Language Teaching.
Hays, G., & Narita, M. (2011, June). How can I help you?: Exploring tutor/tutee interactions
in an EFL writing center in Japan. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second
Language Writing, Taipei, Taiwan.
Johnston, S. (2009). Writing centers in Japan and Asia. The Language Teacher, 33(6),
— 221 —
ft* • 1-1111-ft —CV
33.
Johnston, S. R., Cornwell, S., & Yoshida, H. (2010). Daigaku raityingu senta no kouchiku
to unei ni kansuru kennkyuu - EFL no shiten kara [Establishing and managing
university writing centers - From viewpoints of EFL]. Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (Kakenhi) Report No. 19520531.
Kennedy, B. (1993). Non-native speakers as students in first-year composition classes
with native speakers: How can writing tutors help? Writing Center Journal, 13,
27-38.
Le Corbeiller, S. H. (2010). Better readers, better writers: Tutoring reading in the writing
center (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Idaho State University, Pocatello,
Idaho, U.S.A.
Leki, I. (2009). Before the conversation: A sketch of some possible backgrounds,
experiences, and attitudes among ESL students visiting a writing center. In S.
Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd
ed., pp. 1-17). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Mei-writing site of Nagoya University. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.ilas.nagoya-u.ac.jp/AWU/Mei-Writing/Top/Top.html
Myers, S. A. (2003). Reassessing the "proofreading trap": ESL tutoring and writing
instruction. Writing Center Journal, 24, 51-67.
Nakamaru, S. (2010). Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and
U.S.-educated multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19,
95-113. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.01.001
North, S. M. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46, 433-446.
Powers, J. K. (1993). Rethinking writing center conferencing strategies for the ESL
writer. Writing Center Journal, 13, 39-47.
Ritter, J. J., & Sandvik, T. (2009). Meeting in the middle: Bridging the construction of
meaning with generation 1.5 learners. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL
writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed., pp. 91-104). Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Sadoshima, S. (2011) Nihon no daigaku ni okeru akademikku raityingu shidou
[Academic writing instruction at a Japanese university]. Retrieved from
— 222 —
Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/adv/wol/opinion/international _080609.htm
Severino, C. (1993). The 'doodles' in context: Qualifying claims about contrastive
rhetoric. Writing Center Journal, 14, 44-62.
The Academic Writing Center at GRIPS. (2011). National Graduate Institute for Policy
Studies. Retrieved from http://www3.grips.ac.jp/-awc/awc.html
Thonus, T. (1993). Tutors as teachers. Assisting ESL/EFL students in the writing
center. Writing Center Journal, 13, 102-114.
Thonus, T. (1999a). Dominance in academic writing tutorials: Gender, language,
proficiency, and the offering of suggestions. Discourse & Society, 10, 225-248.
doi: 10.1177/0957926599010002005
Thonus, T. (1999b). How to communicate politely and be a tutor, too: NS-NNS
interaction and writing center practice. Text, 19, 253-280.
doi: 10.1515/text.1.1999.19.2.253,//1999
Thonus, T. (2001). Triangulation in the writing center: Tutor, tutee, and instructor
perceptions of the tutor's role. Writing Center Journal, 22, 59-81.
Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What
is success? Assessing Writing, 8, 110-134. doi: 10.1016/S1075-2935 (03) 00002-3
Thonus, T. (2003). Serving Generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center.
TESOL Journal, 12(1), 17-24.
Thonus, T. (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second-
language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 227-242.
doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.012
Tsuda College Writing Center. (2011) Retrieved from http://www.twc.tsuda.ac.jp/
Waring, H. Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing center: Identity, expertise, and
advice-resisting. Applied Linguistics, 26, 141-168. doi: 10.1093/applin/amh041
Waseda University. (2011). What is the Writing Center? Summary of the Writing Center.
Retrieved from http://www.cie-waseda.jp/awp/en/wc/outline.html
Weigle, S. C., & Nelson, G. L. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case
studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13, 203-225. doi: 10.1016/j/jslw.2004.04.011
Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center.
Journal of Basic Writing, 21, 16-34.
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing
— 223 —
ft* • 1-11111-ft —CV
center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 173-201. doi: 10.1016/
j .j slw.2004.04.009
Williams, J. (2005). Writing center interaction: Institutional discourse and the role of
peer tutors. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage
pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 37-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Williams, J., & Severino, C. (2004). The writing center and second language writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 165-172. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.010
Yasuda, S. (2006). Japanese students' literacy background and the role of the writing
center. The Language Teacher, 30(5), 3-7.
Yoshida, H., Johnston, S., & Cornwell, S. (2010). Daigaku raityngu senta ni kansuru
kosatsu - sono yakuwari to mokuteki [Reports on university writing centers -
their roles and purposes]. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 61 (3), 99-109.
— 224 —