The Tutoring Book - California State University, Sacramento

assert the mission of writing centers as places that seek to improve the writer rather than mastery of
content.
Discipline-specific tutors would presumably also have a stronger grasp of the conventions of the
discipline than the tutee. This too can lead to a tutoring relationship in which the tutor is seen as the
expert and the writer a mere disciple, a dynamic that very closely mirrors the classroom and therefore
diminishes the benefits of the writing center as a space in which the benefits of collaboration is a driver of
success. Furthermore, unless the tutor has access to the classroom, even the most skilled disciplinespecific
tutor will not be as qualified as the student to understand the writing task. While many
instructors practice the rhetorical techniques of writing effective prompts, most writing tasks are
communicated not just through the written prompt but also through classroom practices, exercises and
culture. Thus, it is the tutee that must be held responsible for understanding and communicating to the
tutor the purpose of the writing task, something they may feel unqualified to do during a session with a
perceived “expert.”
According to McAndrew and Reigstad, research on the benefits of peer group work has shown
that peer groups “develop their own metalanguage about writing that allows them to discuss writing
processes and products in ways that teacher-supplied language rarely does” (McAndrew 9). This
“teacher-supplied language,” however, seems to closely describe the kind of language discipline-specific
tutors would speak. Instead of bringing in a new, quizzical voice that tutors often do when faced with a
subject they are unfamiliar with, discipline-specific tutors may simply reinforce the language of the
teacher. The idea behind having more specially trained tutors is that in engaging in discourse with a
discipline-specific tutor, the tutee would further gain access to that discourse community. The hope is
that through working with the tutor, the tutee would gain a better understanding of the content area they
are studying and the conventions they are expected to use in writing. While this sounds ideal, it does not,
however, allow for a space that is at least partially separated from the requirements of the instructor and a
discipline in which students can engage in sincere questioning of their subject. This oversight is
unfortunate as it suggests the omnipresence of the instructor and institution.
What is particular about writing centers that entices so much interest from theorists is that they
pose a place where the institution may be challenged because of the student-centered nature they embody.
One thing that is often glossed over in many discussions of the role of writing centers and their tutors is
the population that comprises these centers: tutees are students and tutors are students. What these
players have in common is that they are learners, primarily engaged in a quest to gain knowledge, and
they are people that almost certainly participate in various discourse communities. To further delve into
the implications of this, we turn to feminist theory and how it can be used to describe the work being done
in today’s writing centers. According to McAndrew and Reigstad, there are “three distinct aspects of
feminist teaching” (which, it is important to note, don’t have anything to do with being male or female,
oppressed or oppressor). At the center of feminist theory is the desire to encourage a deeper engagement
on the part of the learner in three ways: feminist theory “redefines subject mastery as seeking knowledge
on personal terms and in concert with others,” “it awakens students’ voices, encouraging and supporting
them in expressing their responses and life experiences,” and “it establishes a new authority in the
classroom: Students are responsible for their own learning because the learning is grounded in their life
experiences” (McAndrew 7). While tutors might struggle to see how to enact the first two tenets in halfhour
tutoring sessions with drop-in tutees, we might all agree that learning should be the responsibility of
the learner—and is, perhaps, only successful under those conditions. We should not shy away from
placing a significant portion of the responsibility for their learning process on the tutee, for it is their
education for which they come to the writing center. Tutees should be expected to bring the knowledge
of their own discipline with them to a session, including content and conventions, while tutors should
bring the knowledge they have of their discipline as well, their knowledge of writing. We can, of course,
help them determine where to find the information they need about their discipline if they do not have it.
However, tutors are not simply there to reinforce the knowledge of the instructor and the institution the
tutee is already coping with, but to help them find their own place as writers within their discipline. We
do not need to be experts in other disciplines in order to help students understand the knowledge base and
128