Ä¢¹½´«Ã½

Writing centers promote all writers to come in with any writing, especially all types of backgrounds. According to “The Peer Review,” “[t]utors knowing how to identify and properly combat sophistry without pushing their own biases is key to creating effective learning communities,” (Slowik, 2021). Student writers have different views, so it may be hard to initiate a conversation without judgement, especially due to “cancel culture.” Writing centers should be trained to keep an open dialogue when conversing about controversial topics. There is avoidance when consultants and writers bring conflicting political beliefs into a tutoring session and writing centers should have an open dialogue despite discomfort. This challenges maintaining a “parlor” atmosphere, involving respectful and ongoing conversations within a polarized context where neutrality is difficult to sustain.      
This session will present observations and qualitative interviews, which will focus on the consultants' experiences during a consultation with a controversial topic they feel uncomfortable with. Some of the main questions that will be explored are the common controversies, consultants’ comfortability, and writing center preparedness. Repeated exposure to politically sensitive discussions can contribute to consultant stress, avoidance, or burnout; therefore, this session emphasizes emotional regulation as crucial to sustainable writing center work. This will also present consulting strategies with a focus on engagement and open mindedness to maintain the welcoming and inclusive space, such as active listening and asking clarifying questions. Overall, participants will gain practical strategies for navigating political discomfort while sustaining open, ethical dialogue in their writing center consultations. 

As Co-editors of the Gumby Writing Project, we see storytelling as a way to build connection, especially in a time marked by both deep division and everyday acts of care. In that spirit, we created the theme, “The Stories We Carry,” inviting the CLU community to reflect on the memories and personal experiences that shape their perspective and how they move through the world.
In this session, we will share our collaborative journey as co-editors and walk you through the lifecycle of a community literacy project: from conceptualizing the theme to soliciting submissions and editing the final pieces. This editorial journey reinforced our belief that writing is a collaborative art form that can spark dialogue, bridge divides, and bring us together. 

Since generative AI (GenAI) became publicly available in 2022, writing centers (WC) have grappled with how to respond—both to students’ use of GenAI writing tools and to what GenAI’s existence means for the role WCs play in writing support and education. Across institutions, approaches to GenAI have varied: some WCs have resisted engagement, others have been cautious, and still others have embraced GenAI, calling on writing centers to “not just accept and work with them. We have the opportunity to take the lead and pioneer them” (Lindberg, 2025). 

Within this landscape, this presentation aims to look beyond whether GenAI should be engaged with and how; instead, it acknowledges the reality that students already use GenAI, which has changed their writing process and relationship with the WC, and seeks to understand student decision-making regarding WC and GenAI usage.
This study uses a quantitative survey to examine how students engage with the Writing Center instead of, or alongside, GenAI. The survey collects data on the types of projects students seek support for, the stage of the writing process at which they seek assistance, their satisfaction with both resources, and the reasons they choose the Writing Center rather than relying on GenAI alone. These findings are used to identify preliminary implications for WC marketing, consultant training, and institutional identity as WCs work to remain relevant and effective in an evolving literacy landscape.

This session explores writing center pedagogy that creates more equitable classroom learning. It particularly assesses the scaffolding strategies that promote student freedom, especially regarding feedback. As an aspiring teacher, I will draw from writing center scholarship, engaging Mackiewicz and Thompson’s work on politeness theory to illustrate how these practices within writing centers improve self-efficacy and encourage active participation. Additionally, I will use Wisniewski’s case study of student teachers with writing center experience to discuss the limitations and benefits of applying writing center practices to classrooms like creating equitable assessment opportunities that align with writing center spaces. Currently, there is limited collaboration between the Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ Writing Center consultants and faculty. Instead, I will highlight the impact of utilizing writing center practices within my own teaching and the classroom practices of other consultants going into education. It will inform my pedagogical teaching stance, helping me to understand how I can better create a collaborative environment and provide individualized support and student-centered feedback. By drawing from Carino’s work, I will acknowledge the practical limitations of shifting power dynamics and illustrate how learning can be enhanced by using both directive and nondirective tutoring strategies. I argue that this balanced approach between concrete guidance and collaboration allows for the most effective impact on student freedom, leading to more long-term growth and motivation in students. Ultimately, this presentation encourages participants to reflect on how these insights can inspire improvement in teaching, tutoring, and the confidence and agency of classroom and writing center students.