The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

What this handout is about

When we use nouns in English, articles (a, an, and the) specify which and how many nouns we mean. To choose the correct article for your sentence, you need to answer two questions. First, do I mean this one exactly, one of many, or all of them everywhere? Second, is the noun count or non-count? This handout explains these questions and how their answers help determine which article to use.

Using this handout

As you use the handout, try to keep three things in mind:

  • First, this handout will be most effective if you use it as a tool. Every time you read this handout, read it along side another piece of writing (a journal article, a magazine, a web page, a novel, a text book, etc.). Locate a few nouns in the reading, and use the handout to analyze the article usage. If you practice a little bit at a time, this kind of analysis can help you develop a natural sensitivity to this complex system.
  • Second, using articles correctly is a skill that develops over time through lots of reading, writing, speaking and listening. Think about the rules in this handout, but also try to pay attention to how articles are being used in the language around you. Simply paying attention can also help you develop a natural sensitivity to this complex system.
  • Finally, although using the wrong article may distract a reader’s attention, it usually does not prevent the reader from understanding your meaning. So be patient with yourself as you learn.

Basic rules

This is a simple list, but understanding it and remembering it is crucial to using articles correctly.

Rule # 1: Every time a noun is mentioned, the writer is referring to:

  • All of them everywhere (“generic” reference),
  • One of many, (“indefinite” reference) or
  • This one exactly (“definite” reference)

Rule # 2: Every kind of reference has a choice of articles:

  • All of them everywhere…(Ø, a/an, the)
  • One of many……………..(Ø, a/an)
  • This one exactly…………(Ø, the)

(Ø = no article)

Rule # 3: The choice of article depends upon the noun and the context. This will be explained more fully below.

Basic questions

To choose the best article, ask yourself these questions:

  • “What do I mean? Do I mean all of them everywhere, one of many, or this one exactly?”
  • “What kind of noun is it? Is it countable or not? Is it singular or plural? Does it have any special rules?”

Your answers to these questions will usually determine the correct article choice, and the following sections will show you how.

When you mean “all of them everywhere”

Talking about “all of them everywhere” is also called “generic reference.” We use it to make generalizations: to say something true of all the nouns in a particular group, like an entire species of animal. When you mean “all of them everywhere,” you have three article choices: Ø, a/an, the. The choice of article depends on the noun. Ask yourself, “What kind of noun is it?”

Non-count nouns = no article (Ø)

  • Temperature is measured in degrees.
  • Money makes the world go around.

Plural nouns = no article (Ø)

  • Volcanoes are formed by pressure under the earth’s surface.
  • Quagga zebras were hunted to extinction.

Singular nouns = the

  • The computer is a marvelous invention.
  • The elephant lives in family groups.

Note: We use this form (the + singular) most often in technical and scientific writing to generalize about classes of animals, body organs, plants, musical instruments, and complex inventions. We do not use this form for simple inanimate objects, like books or coat racks. For these objects, use (Ø + plural).

Singular nouns = a/an when a single example represents the entire group

  • A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
  • A doctor is a highly educated person. Generally speaking, a doctor also has tremendous earning potential.

How do you know it’s generic? The “all…everywhere” test

Here’s a simple test you can use to identify generic references while you’re reading. To use this test, substitute “all [plural noun] everywhere” for the noun phrase. If the statement is still true, it’s probably a generic reference. Example:

  • A whale protects its young—”All whales everywhere” protect their young. (true—generic reference)
  • A whale is grounded on the beach—”All whales everywhere” are grounded on the beach. (not true, so this is not a generic reference; this “a” refers to “one of many”)

You’ll probably find generic references most often in the introduction and conclusion sections and at the beginning of a paragraph that introduces a new topic.

When you mean “one of many”

Talking about “one of many” is also called “indefinite reference.” We use it when the noun’s exact identity is unknown to one of the participants: the reader, the writer, or both. Sometimes it’s not possible for the reader or the writer to identify the noun exactly; sometimes it’s not important. In either case, the noun is just “one of many.” It’s “indefinite.” When you mean “one of many,” you have two article choices: Ø, a/an. The choice of article depends on the noun. Ask yourself, “What kind of noun is it?”

  • Our science class mixed boric acid with water today.
  • We serve bread and water on weekends.
  • We’re happy when people bring cookies!
  • We need volunteers to help with community events.

Singular nouns = a/an

  • Bring an umbrella if it looks like rain.
  • You’ll need a visa to stay for more than ninety days.

Note: We use many different expressions for an indefinite quantity of plural or non-count nouns. Words like “some,” “several,” and “many” use no article (e.g., We need some volunteers to help this afternoon. We really need several people at 3:00.) One exception: “a few” + plural noun (We need a few people at 3:00.) In certain situations, we always use “a” or “an.” These situations include:

  • Referring to something that is one of a number of possible things. Example: My lab is planning to purchase a new microscope. (Have you chosen one yet? No, we’re still looking at a number of different models.)
  • Referring to one specific part of a larger quantity. Example: Can I have a bowl of cereal and a slice of toast? (Don’t you want the whole box of cereal and the whole loaf of bread? No, thanks. Just a bowl and a slice will be fine.)
  • With certain indefinite quantifiers. Example: We met a lot of interesting people last night. (You can also say “a bunch of” or “a ton of” when you want to be vague about the exact quantity. Note that these expressions are all phrases: a + quantifier + of.)
  • Exception: “A few of” does not fit this category. See Number 8 in the next section for the correct usage of this expression.
  • Specifying information associated with each item of a grouping. Example: My attorney asked for $200 an hour, but I’ll offer him $200 a week instead. (In this case, “a” can substitute for the word “per.”)
  • Introducing a noun to the reader for the first time (also called “first mention”). Use “the” for each subsequent reference to that noun if you mean “this one exactly.” Example: I presented a paper last month, and my advisor wants me to turn the paper into an article. If I can get the article written this semester, I can take a break after that! I really need a break!

Note: The writer does not change from “a break” to “the break” with the second mention because she is not referring to one break in particular (“this break exactly”). It’s indefinite—any break will be fine!!

When you mean “this one exactly”

Talking about “this one exactly” is also called “definite reference.” We use it when both the reader and the writer can identify the exact noun that is being referred to. When you mean “this one exactly,” you have two article choices: Ø, the. The choice of article depends on the noun and on the context. Ask yourself, “What kind of noun is it?”

(Most) Proper nouns = no article (Ø)

  • My research will be conducted in Luxembourg.
  • Dr. Homer inspired my interest in Ontario.

Note: Some proper nouns do require “the.” See the special notes on nouns below.

Non-count nouns = the

  • Step two: mix the water with the boric acid.
  • The laughter of my children is contagious.

Plural nouns = the

  • We recruited the nurses from General Hospital.
  • The projects described in your proposal will be fully funded.
  • Bring the umbrella in my closet if it looks like rain.
  • Did you get the visa you applied for?

In certain situations, we always use “the” because the noun or the context makes it clear that we’re talking about “this one exactly.” The context might include the words surrounding the noun or the context of knowledge that people share. Examples of these situations include:

Unique nouns

  • The earth rotates around the sun.
  • The future looks bright!

Shared knowledge (both participants know what’s being referred to, so it’s not necessary to specify with any more details)

  • The boss just asked about the report.
  • Meet me in the parking lot after the show.

Second mention (with explicit first mention)

  • I found a good handout on English articles. The handout is available online.
  • You can get a giant ice cream cone downtown. If you can eat the cone in five seconds, you get another one free.

Second mention (with implied first mention—this one is very, very common)

  • Dr. Frankenstein performed a complicated surgery. He said the patient is recovering nicely. (“The patient” is implied by “surgery”—every surgery has a patient.)
  • My new shredder works fabulously! The paper is completely destroyed. (Again, “the paper” is implied by “shredder.”)

Ordinals and superlatives (first, next, primary, most, best, least, etc.)

  • The first man to set foot on the moon…
  • The greatest advances in medicine…

Specifiers (sole, only, principle, etc.)

  • The sole purpose of our organization is…
  • The only fact we need to consider is…

Restricters (words, phrases, or clauses that restrict the noun to one definite meaning)

  • Study the chapter on osmosis for the test tomorrow.
  • Also study the notes you took at the lecture that Dr. Science gave yesterday.

Plural nouns in partitive -of phrases (phrases that indicate parts of a larger whole) (Note: Treat “of the” as a chunk in these phrases—both words in or both words out)

  • Most of the international students have met their advisors, but a few of them have appointments next week. (emphasis on part of the group, and more definite reference to a specific group of international students, like the international students at UNC)
  • Most international students take advantage of academic advising during their college careers. (emphasis on the group as a whole, and more generic reference to international students everywhere)
  • Several of the risk factors should be considered carefully, but the others are only minor concerns. (emphasis on part of the group)
  • Several risk factors need to be considered carefully before we proceed with the project. (emphasis on the group as a whole)
  • A few of the examples were hard to understand, but the others were very clear. (emphasis on part of the group)
  • A few examples may help illustrate the situation clearly. (emphasis on the group as a whole)

Note: “Few examples” is different from “a few examples.” Compare:

  • The teacher gave a few good examples. (a = emphasizes the presence of good examples)
  • The teacher gave few good examples. (no article = emphasizes the lack of good examples)

Article flowchart

For the more visually oriented, this flowchart sketches out the basic rules and basic questions.

An image of a flowchart that visually represents the questions and information above to assist in determining what kind of article one should use in different contexts.

Some notes about nouns

Uncountable nouns.

As the name suggests, uncountable nouns (also called non-count or mass nouns) are things that can not be counted. They use no article for generic and indefinite reference, and use “the” for definite reference. Uncountable nouns fall into several categories:

  • Abstractions: laughter, information, beauty, love, work, knowledge
  • Fields of study: biology, medicine, history, civics, politics (some end in -s but are non-count)
  • Recreational activities: football, camping, soccer, dancing (these words often end in -ing)
  • Natural phenomena: weather, rain, sunshine, fog, snow (but events are countable: a hurricane, a blizzard, a tornado)
  • Whole groups of similar/identical objects: furniture, luggage, food, money, cash, clothes
  • Liquids, gases, solids, and minerals: water, air, gasoline, coffee, wood, iron, lead, boric acid
  • Powders and granules: rice, sand, dust, calcium carbonate
  • Diseases: cancer, diabetes, schizophrenia (but traumas are countable: a stroke, a heart attack, etc.)

Note: Different languages might classify nouns differently

  • “Research” and “information” are good examples of nouns that are non-count in American English but countable in other languages and other varieties of English.

Strategy: Check a dictionary. A learner’s dictionary will indicate whether the noun is countable or not. A regular dictionary will give a plural form if the noun is countable. Note: Some nouns have both count and non-count meanings Some nouns have both count and non-count meanings in everyday usage. Some non-count nouns have count meanings only for specialists in a particular field who consider distinct varieties of something that an average person would not differentiate. Non-count meanings follow the rules for non-count nouns (generic and indefinite reference: no article; definite: “the”); count meanings follow the count rules (a/an for singular, no article for plural). Can you see the difference between these examples?

  • John’s performance on all three exams was exceptional.
  • John’s performances of Shakespeare were exceptional.
  • To be well educated, you need good instruction.
  • To assemble a complicated machine, you need good instructions.

Proper nouns

Proper nouns (names of people, places, religions, languages, etc.) are always definite. They take either “the” or no article. Use “the” for regions (like the Arctic) and for a place that’s made up of a collection of smaller parts (like a collection of islands, mountains, lakes, etc.). Examples:

  • Places (singular, no article): Lake Erie, Paris, Zimbabwe, Mount Rushmore
  • Places (collective, regional, “the”): the Great Lakes, the Middle East, the Caribbean

Note: Proper nouns in theory names may or may not take articles When a person’s name is part of a theory, device, principle, law, etc., use “the” when the name does not have a possessive apostrophe. Do not use “the” when the name has an apostrophe. Examples:

Note: Articles change when proper nouns function as adjectives Notice how the article changes with “Great Lakes” in the examples below. When place names are used as adjectives, follow the article rule for the noun they are modifying. Examples: I’m studying …

  • …the Great Lakes. (as noun)
  • …a Great Lakes shipwreck.(as adjective with “one of many” singular noun)
  • …the newest Great Lakes museum. (as adjective with “this one exactly” singular noun)
  • …Great Lakes shipping policies. (as adjective with “one of many” plural noun)
  • …Great Lakes history. (as adjective with “one of many” uncountable noun)

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Byrd, Patricia, and Beverly Benson. 1993. Problem/Solution: A Reference for ESL Writers . Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne, and Diane Larsen-Freeman. 2015. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course , 3rd ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Swales, John, and Christine B. Feak. 2012. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills , 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship

Across four issues per year and through numerous online resources WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship promotes exchanges on challenges in tutoring theory and methodology, handling ESL issues, directing a writing center, training tutors, designing and expanding centers, and using tutorial theory and pedagogy.

Current Issue

Volume 48, issue 2, winter 2023.

Open the entire issue

Editor’s Note , by Ted Roggenbuck DOI: 10.37514/WLN-J.2023.48.2.01

From the Blog Editors of Connecting Writing Centers Across Borders , by Anna Habib, Esther Namubiru, Weijia Li

Writing Centers ‘Coming Out’: Diversity Statements as Queer Performance , by Jacob Herrmann DOI: 10.37514/WLN-J.2023.48.2.02

Social Media and the Writing Center: Five Considerations , by Amanda M. May DOI: 10.37514/WLN-J.2023.48.2.03

Tutors on Location: Tutor-mediated Peer Reviews in ESOL Classes , by Anastasiia Kryzhanivska, Fernanda Capraro, and Kimberly Spallinger DOI: 10.37514/WLN-J.2023.48.2.04

An Artist’s Guide to Tutoring Creative Writing , by Sean Tyler DOI: 10.37514/WLN-J.2023.48.2.05

Conference Calendar

Editorial Team

WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship is an open-access, peer-review scholarly journal, published on the WAC Clearinghouse and supported by Colorado State University. Copyright © for the journal is held by its editorial staff. Articles are published under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs).

WLN Facebook Account Logo

The Peer Review

Writing Center Theory and Research: A Review

Rebecca Babcock, University of Texas Permian Basin

This study reviews the current underlying theories relevant to writing centers as well as the research methods being used in the early 21st century. The first section covers the theories used in writing center scholarship from the 1980s onward based on influential articles and texts. The second section covers published research both in the Writing Center Journal (WCJ) and other publications from 2010 onward and discusses the current state of research methods. Readers may not be aware of some of the fine divisions of theory; for example, the distinction between collaborative learning and social constructivism. Researchers may benefit from the overview of methods, which covers the most popular and current methods (survey and textual analysis) and promising but little-published research methods, such as ethnography.

Keywords : collaborative learning, social constructivism, writing as a social process, Zone of Proximal Development, scaffolding, cognitivism, feminism, transfer of learning, threshold concepts, tutoring encounter, social and environmental justice, survey, mixed methods, textual analysis, descriptive studies, theoretical research, archival research, quasi-experiment, quantitative methods, narrative inquiry, grounded theory, case study, usability, ethnography

This article surveys the underlying theories and methods at play in writing center research. Stephen North, in The Making of Knowledge in Composition (1987), noted that in the field of rhetoric and composition there was “no unanimity on important issues” and that “it seemed as if the field did not have a core or a center: there seemed to be no way to frame its central problems, nor any method by which to set about trying to resolve them” (n.p.). Writing center research is not in this position today, but taking a step back and looking at the existing threads of theory and research can do for writing centers what North suggested for composition: frame the field’s central problems and develop methods to try to solve them. To be sure, the word “problems” can be misunderstood in the same way that many students misunderstand the word “critique.” By problems I do not mean troubles or negative circumstances, and I do not think North did either. It is more like a math problem, in that a problem is a research question that needs to be solved. An overview of this content would take another article. In this article I attempt to frame the field’s central beliefs/values in terms of research methods and theories.

1: A Review of Theories Influencing Writing Center Practice and Scholarship

Eric Hobson, in “Maintaining Our Balance: Walking the Tightrope of Competing Epistemologies” (1992), called the search for the one true theory of writing centers as a “hopeless effort” (p. 108) and explained that writing centers do not need to choose just one theory: all proposed theories can be considered valid. Lisa Ede, in “Writing as a Social Process: A Theoretical Foundation for Writing Centers?” takes this explanation a step further: “Practice without theory, as we know, often leads to inconsistent, and sometimes even contradictory and wrongheaded, pedagogical methods” (1989, p. 4). Despite this warning, as I tell my students, there is no atheoretical tutoring or teaching. Some sort of theory—pedagogical, political, philosophical—is being enacted whether or not the person chooses to acknowledge it. In what follows, I describe the major theories that have influenced—and continue to influence—writing center scholarship and practice. These categories are based on evidence from the literature rather than on my (or others’) opinions on what they should be. I present them in a rough chronological order. Other orders are possible.

1.1 Collaborative learning refers to people learning together as equals; it is active learning and stands in opposition to the banking model of education. Kenneth Bruffee’s “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’” and “Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’” (1984a, b) are foundational documents, and collaboration is still represented in contemporary writing center theory. Donald McAndrew and Thomas Reigstad (2001) explained that “collaborative learning organizes people not just to work together on common projects but, more importantly, to engage in a process of intellectual, social, and personal negotiation that leads to collective decision making” (p. 5). The use of peer tutors is based in the theory of collaborative learning. Tutor and writer work together probing, questioning, evaluating, and discussing the work at hand. Tutors also learn from the process: “Both writer and tutor grow as writers because they collaborate on the process and the product of writing” (McAndrew & Reigstad, 2001, p. 6).

1.2 Social constructivism/constructionism is a post-modern theory that posits knowledge does not exist “out there” but is constructed by individuals and groups in communication. Andrea Lunsford’s famous article “Collaboration, Control and the Idea of a Writing Center” brought social construction to the fore in 1991, framing the ideal writing center interaction as a Burkean Parlor [1] event. Even though collaborative learning and social constructivism have been conflated many times in the literature (e.g., Murphy, 1994), they are distinct. It is possible to collaborate on a project that has top-down objectivist parameters, in which case knowledge would not be socially constructed even though the work and learning is collaborative. John Nordlof critiqued social constructivism, stating that sometimes the information is “out there” in the form of MLA requirements, etc. Moreover, Nordlof argued that social constructivist theory does not “clarify tutoring approaches [or] provide impetus for research” (2014, p. 45).

1.3 Writing as a social process is the theory that writing itself is a social act (as opposed to being learning and knowledge, which the first two theories deal with). Lisa Ede convincingly argued for this theory as it relates to writing centers back in 1989, maintaining that theories of collaborative learning did not go far enough. According to Ede, if writing is individual then collaborative learning is “unnatural” since only “beginning or second-best writers would need the support and collaboration that in-class peer groups and writing centers provide” (p. 6). McAndrew and Reigstad (2001) classified these theories as “talk and writing” (p. 4), but the prevalence of social media in today’s world provides evidence that this social process can also take place via text over a computer. Frank Smith (1987) has written of joining the literacy club as a metaphor for writing as a social process. Writing center tutoring allows students to join the academic literacy club through their interaction with a tutor.

1.4 The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), created by Soviet Psychologist Lev Vygotsky in the 1930s, proposes that a learner can achieve more in the presence of a more capable peer, even if the peer does nothing besides be present. A related Vygotskian contribution is the idea that children need to use speech when performing tasks beyond their level of difficulty. The writing center tutorial interaction is implicitly based on these theories: the use of talk is needed to accomplish difficult tasks, and “the concept of the…ZPD provides a productive lens for describing tutoring strategies in writing center conferences” (Mackiewicz and Thompson, 2018, p. 4). Similarly, Nordlof (2014, 2020) determined through his research that ZPD was an underlying theory of writing center tutoring and scholarship. Rebecca Day Babcock, Kellye Manning, Travis Rogers, Courtney Goff, and Amanda McCain (2012) came to the same conclusion using a grounded theory approach through which they found most of the examined studies were based on a Vygotskian model where learning happens in the presence of a more capable peer.

Vygotskian theories are demonstrated in many articles without being explicitly referenced, including Tom Truesdell’s “Not Choosing Sides: Using Directive and Non-Directive Methodology in a Writing Session” (2007) and Peter Carino’s “Power and Authority in Peer Tutoring” (2003). In “Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development,” Ali Aljaafreh and James Lantolf described a 13-step heuristic showing levels of directivity ranging from the learner acting independently to the tutor “provid[ing] examples of the correct pattern” (1994, p. 471). Although their continuum relates to lower-order concerns, it demonstrates the non-directive/directive binary is actually not a binary but two poles on a continuum, and that, according to Vygotskian theory, the level of assistance or directivity are based on the needs of the tutee. The two “poles” can be and are accommodated by the same theory.

1.5 Scaffolding is the process whereby learners achieve what they are capable of through assistance, achieving more than if left alone to complete the task. Scaffolding was first proposed by David Wood, Jerome Bruner, and Gail Ross (1976), who defined it as a “process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts” (p. 90). According to Wood et al., the scaffolding process has six steps, each of which have clear analogues to writing center tutoring: 1. Recruitment (getting the learner interested in the task); 2. Reduction in Degrees of Freedom (simplifying the task); 3. Direction Maintenance (keeping the learner on task); 4. Marking Critical Features (pointing out where the learner is on track or off track in relation to the goal); 5. Frustration Control (reducing stress); and 6. Demonstration (modeling).

According to Isabelle Thompson (2009), the Vygotskian encounter includes scaffolding. Thompson discussed direct instruction, cognitive scaffolding, and motivational scaffolding, which are based on terms developed by Jennifer Cromley and Roger Azevedo (2005) in research about adult literacy . Direct instruction involves giving answers and telling the tutee what to do. Cognitive scaffolding involves breaking down tasks, giving hints, and asking, “What’s next?” (Thompson, 2009, p. 423). Motivational scaffolding involves a tutor providing feedback and encouraging a student to continue. Other scholarship that addresses scaffolding in the writing center includes Jo Mackiewicz and Isabelle Thompson’s “Motivational Scaffolding, Politeness, and Writing Center Tutoring” (2013), which links scaffolding and politeness in tutor talk; Talk about Writing (Mackiewicz & Thompson, 2018) , a book-length study based on concepts of instruction and cognitive and motivational scaffolding strategies used by experienced tutors; and Neal Lerner’s The Idea of a Writing Laboratory (2009b), which links scaffolding to a master/apprentice model of learning that includes reflection.

1.6 Cognitivism is a theory that “attempts to equate writing proficiencies with stage-models for thinking and views writing as problem solving” (Carino, 1995, p. 126). Although writing centers have not embraced cognitive theories over the years, cognitivism has been taken up by composition studies. According to Sarah Liggett, Kerri Jordan, and Steve Price, “while this model [Flower & Hays] has influenced writing center pedagogy, writing center researchers have not developed a cognitive process model of tutoring” (2011, p. 77). As such, I predict that the cognitive model will have a resurgence. Interested readers should consult the collection Contemporary Perspectives on Cognition and Writing edited by Patricia Portanova, Michael Rifenburg, and Duane Roen (2017), the chairs of the Conference on College Composition and Communication Standing Group on Cognition and Writing.

1.7 Feminism is based on the belief that all people are equal and invests in the dismantling of hierarchies. McAndrew and Registad argued that writing center tutoring is a form of feminist teaching because ideas of equality inform peer tutoring and that “tutor and writer work toward a common goal” (2001, p. 7). In Women’s Ways of Knowing , Mary Field Belenky, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger, and Jill Tarule (1986) explained the concepts of “connected teaching” and “teacher as midwife” in which connected teachers assist students in bringing out their own ideas rather than acting as dispensers of knowledge. Midwife teachers (or tutors) “support their students’ thinking, but they do not do their students thinking for them or expect the students to think as they do” (pp. 217-18).  A seminal article on feminism and tutoring is “The Politics of Tutoring: Feminism within the Patriarchy” by Meg Woolbright (1993).

Feminism can be applied to more than just tutoring. Michelle Miley in “Feminist Mothering: A Theory/Practice for Writing Center Administration” (2016) applies the concept of feminist mothering (as opposed to patriarchal mothering) to writing center administrative work. In this model the mother/writing center director maintains an outside identity, insists on shared partnership, and raises children/tutors with feminist values. Miley further discusses feminist theory and its connection to writing centers in her chapter “Bringing Feminist Theory Home” (2020).

1.8 Transfer of learning means taking something someone has learned and using it in a similar or different context. This concept suggests that we cannot teach skills in isolation; instead, we must explicitly tell students how they can use these skills in other contexts. Bonnie Devet (2015) provided a primer on transfer theory and research from the domains of educational psychology and composition and explained how transfer applies both to consultants and to their work with student writers. In addition, Heather Hill (2016) applied transfer to the context of tutor training by instructing tutors to engage in explicit transfer talk with tutees to make sure tutees understand a writing concept before moving on. Hill discussed more about transfer in writing centers in her 2020 chapter in Theories and Methods of Writing Center Studies . Pam Bromley, Kara Northway, and Eliana Schonberg (2016) conducted a study on transfer and found that all in all, students do engage in transfer from writing center work to other contexts.

1.9 The theory of threshold concepts posits that novices must grasp certain foundational understandings when entering a discipline. In writing studies, the concepts are: writing is an activity and a subject of study; writing speaks to situations through recognizable forms; writing enacts and creates identities and ideologies; all writers have more to learn; and writing is always a cognitive activity (Adler-Kassner & Wardle, 2015). In “Threshold Concepts in the Writing Center: Scaffolding the Development of Tutor Expertise,” Rebecca S. Nowacek and Brad Hughes posited an additional threshold concept for writing centers—that of experienced, effective conversational partners for writers regularly inhabiting the role of “expert outsider” (2015, p. 181)—and relate threshold concepts directly to scaffolding tutor development and knowledge. Sue Dinitz, writing in WLN, also discussed “Changing Peer Tutors’ Threshold Concepts about Writing” (2018).  

Soon we will likely see scholarship discussing threshold concepts in light of tutee knowledge. In fact, Nowacek’s and Hughes’ 2015 chapter discussed how tutors might use threshold concepts to guide reluctant or misguided writers to better understandings and to help faculty understand the content of the discipline of writing studies. Lisa Cahill, Molly Rentscher, Jessica Jones, Darby Simpson, and Kelly Chase used ideas suggested by Nowacek and Hughes to develop their own “set of beliefs” to guide their writing center work (2017, p. 14).

1.10 Writing center as concept and writing center as place/space. Most studies have looked at tutoring methods rather than writing centers as—conceptual or real—places or spaces (Boquet, 1999); however, some types of theorizing look at the writing center as a conceptual space. For instance, Bonnie Sunstein (1998) discussed the writing center tutorial as a kind of pedagogical “liminal space” where people can talk freely about language and writing. Writing centers also can be liminal textually, spatially, culturally, professionally, and academically/institutionally when writing centers are positioned on a borderland—sometimes erased, sometimes enhanced by their in-between positioning. Anis Bawarshi and Stephanie Pelkowski (1999) suggested applying Mary Louise Pratt’s “Contact Zone” metaphor for the writing center to counteract the dangers of writing centers co-opting students’ language and writing and replacing them with an uncritical standard. In the writing center contact zone, students and tutors are encouraged to critique and analyze the subject positions imposed on them by and through academic discourse.

1.11 The tutoring encounter. Babcock et al. (2012) developed a theory of the tutoring encounter by using grounded theory to analyze almost 60 qualitative studies of writing centers published between 1983 and 2006. What follows is their expression of this theory:

Tutor and tutee encounter each other and bring background, expectations, and personal characteristics into a context composed of outside influences. Through the use of roles and communication they interact, creating the session focus, the energy of which is generated through a continuum of collaboration and conflict. The temperament and emotions of the tutor and tutee interplay with the other factors in the session. The confluence of these factors results in the outcome of the session (affective, cognitive, and material). Wolcott (1989) put it well when she wrote that “each conference represents a unique blending of variables—tutor personality, tutor priorities, student personality, student background, and student text” (p. 25). (2012, p. 11-12)

Concrete examples of this theory of the tutoring encounter occur widely in writing center publications and Babcock and colleagues are currently testing it against real data (2019).

1.12 Social and environmental justice. Other burgeoning theories are social and environmental justice. For example, social critique and activism have resulted in recent movements to bring multiculturalism, postmodern perspectives, and political activism to the forefront of writing center theory and research. Harry Denny (2010) wrote of the intersections between various identities (race, class, gender, nationality) and writing center work. Anne Ellen Geller, Michele Eodice, Frankie Condon, Meg Carroll, and Elizabeth Boquet (2007) brought in concepts of tricksters, time, a learning culture, anti-racism, and communities of practice to our understandings of how writing centers operate and how directors and tutors can work together to foster a learning culture. Greenfield and Rowan (2011), in their award-winning edited collection, presented more food for thought at the intersection of racism and writing centers, especially foregrounding issues of language and institutional racism. Romeo Garcia’s “Unmaking Gringo Centers” (2017) is also an article worth reading on this subject. [2]

2: A Review of Writing Center Research Methods

Writing center practitioners have long been interested in and concerned with research. In 1984, North called for writing center practitioners to examine what actually happens in tutoring sessions through descriptive case studies. More recently, research has been strongly promoted by the International Writing Centers Association (through grants and awards) as well as scholars in the field. For instance, Paula Gillespie, Alice Gilliam, Lady Falls Brown and Byron Stay produced Writing Center Research: Extending the Conversation in 2002, providing frameworks and models for would-be researchers; Rebecca Babcock and Terese Thonus published Researching the Writing Center: Towards an Evidence Based Practice in 2012 (revised edition 2018), providing an overview of what research has been done and a framework for further studies; Liggett, Jordan, and Price brought forth “Mapping Knowledge-Making in Writing Center Research: A Taxonomy of Methodologies” in 2011; and Jackie Grutsch McKinney published Strategies for Writing Center Research in 2016, providing a step-by-step introduction for beginning and experienced researchers alike. Most recently, Jo Mackiewicz and Rebecca Babcock edited the collection Theories and Methods of Writing Center Studies (2020) . In the following sections, I provide a review of historical and current writing center research methods for readers to form a better understanding of both the past and present condition of writing center research.

2.1 A brief history of writing center research. The first call for writing center research came in Lindquist’s dissertation (1927; quoted in Lerner, 2006) when he called for research by writing laboratory supervisors to determine effective teaching methods. A flurry of theses and dissertations were done at the University of Chicago between 1924 and 1936 (Lerner, 2009a), and studies in this period were by and large experiments or quasi-experiments where groups of students were taught using one or another method and results were compared (Lerner, 2007). For example, Essie Chamberlain’s 1924 thesis studied high school classes using the “recitation” and “supervised study” methods. Chamberlain found the recitation method, which equates to a workshop approach in which students read and critiqued each other’s work, to be superior to the supervised study method (students working independently with periodic teacher conferences). The first published research study related to writing centers was by Warren Horner (1929), based on his 1928 dissertation. The experiment compared the laboratory method and the recitation method. The laboratory method consisted of all writing taking place in the classroom along with teacher-student conferences. The recitation method classes used peer review as well as lectures and demonstrations about writing and discussions over readings. All writing was completed at home with students logging in their time spent working. Horner found a very small gain in writing skills among the laboratory group, but the significant finding was that they spent half the time to achieve the same results.

According to Lerner (2009a), after the 1920s and 1930s, writing center research seemed to drop off the map, with only two dissertations completed between 1940 and 1970. Again, in the 1970s, research emerged that was mostly experimental and quasi-experimental. Also introduced around this time was theoretical work on writing centers, such as Jeanne Simpson’s dissertation, “A Rhetorical Defense of the Writing Center,” which appeared in 1982. After North’s 1984 call for research on tutoring sessions, qualitative research increased—still mostly in dissertations (Lerner, 2007). Janice Neuleib also called for additional research in 1984. Although she called for case study research, the protocol she described resembles teacher research as she suggested tutors should take careful notes on the students they tutor, do a needs assessment, prioritize issues, tutor the student, assess what happened, and make future plans.

A research explosion began in the 1990s with more and more scholars and practitioners turning their attention to empirical, data-driven research in writing centers. This is most easily seen in Lerner’s dissertation bibliography (2009a), since dissertations are mostly a research genre. According to Lerner’s bibliography, up until 1980, 14 PhD dissertations had been written on writing centers and labs, jumping to 19 in the 1980s alone, 37 in the ‘90s and 72 in the first decade of the 21 st century. In fact, most writing center research, historically and currently, took place in dissertations, much of which has not been published (Liggett, 2014).

2.2 Current trends in research methods. In 1987’s The Making of Knowledge in Composition , Stephen North presented his version of the types of research being done in composition studies at the time. Recently, other typologies of writing center research have emerged, most notably from Liggett, Jordan, and Price (2011) and Lauren Fitzgerald and Melissa Ianetta (2016). Fitzgerald (2012) used similar typology (Historical, Theoretical, Empirical) in “Writing Center Scholarship: A ‘Big Cross-Disciplinary Tent.’” These typologies give an overview of the field and allow novice researchers and scholars to situate the research they are contemplating, both as consumers and producers . Such taxonomies are inevitably imperfect and suffer from exclusion (what does not neatly fit) and permeability (research that bridges more than one category).

In “Theory, Lore, and More: An Analysis of RAD Research in WCJ , 1980-2009” Dana Driscoll and Sherry Wynn Perdue (2012) investigated research published in WCJ in its first thirty years. They found that not much research that could be considered Replicable, Aggregable, and Data-Driven (RAD) had appeared in the pages of WCJ . In fact, only 16% of the articles could be categorized as RAD research according to their rubric. However, Mackiewicz and Thompson, writing in 2018, found that “over the past three years, more articles discussing RAD or using RAD methodology have been published in The Writing Center Journal than the number appearing for the 29 years from 1980 until 2009” (p. 1).

I extended Driscoll and Perdue’s research of WCJ articles by identifying which research methods were used between 2010-2015. I also sampled publications other than the core writing center venues through a search of Academic Search Complete using the keywords “Writing Center” and “Research” to find articles published between 2010-2015. Later I added WCJ articles published in 2016-2018 and other relevant studies to illustrate the categories. I did not attempt a quantitative analysis similar to Driscoll & Perdue (2012). In the subsequent sections, I categorize the research methods within this dataset. Although some of the methods described below are entire research frameworks, sets of guidelines that come as a package (Holton & Walsh, 2017), I am including them alongside methods to offer the reader an understanding of research approaches being used in the field resulting in publication. These research “packages” are known as methodologies. They typically encompass approach, theory, and method. Interview, observation, and analysis of text are the qualitative methods which are the tools used in various methodologies. Action research, case study, grounded theory, and ethnography are all methodologies based on these methods with various theoretical approaches and aims. Readers interested in more information on methodology can consult such works as Peter Smagorinsky’s “The Method Section as Conceptual Epicenter in Constructing Social Science Research Reports,” Theresa Lillis’s “Ethnography as Method, Methodology, and ‘Deep Theorizing’: Closing the Gap Between Text and Context in Academic Writing Research,” and Methods and Methodology in Composition Research , edited by Gesa Kirsch and Patricia Sullivan.

2.2.1 Survey has always been a popular method in writing center studies and continues to be. Surveys are usually quantitative but they can be qualitative as well with the use of open-ended questions. Stephen Neaderhiser and Joanna Wolfe (2009) used surveys quantitatively in “Between Technological Endorsement and Resistance: The State of Online Writing Centers.” A qualitative survey was conducted by Bethany Bibb (2012), in which she surveyed tutors and instructors about grammar instruction. Of note is that Bibb was an undergraduate when she conducted this study and that it appeared in an all-undergraduate issue of WCJ . Also appearing in this issue was another survey-based study by Jennifer Nickaly (2012) about consultant guilt. Another notable survey is Anne Ellen Geller and Harry Denny’s “Of Ladybugs, Low Status, and Loving the Job: Writing Center Professionals Navigating Their Career” (2013). Kathleen Coffey, Bridget Gelms, Cynthia Johnson, and Heidi McKee (2017) surveyed students and consultants to look at collaborative writing teams and the role of tutor/consultant as facilitator. Sarah Banschbach Valles, Rebecca Day Babcock, and Karen Keaton Jackson (2017) surveyed writing center administrators for demographic information, some of which, like race, age, and native language, had never been gathered before for this population.

2.2.2 Interviews involve some level of personal contact between the researcher and participants and are typically conducted in person, by phone, via webcam, or in some cases via email. Some interviews involve learning from a famous scholar, such as “Writing Center Work Bridging Boundaries: An Interview with Muriel Harris” by Elizabeth Threadgill (2010) in the Journal of Developmental Education . In a similar vein, Stacy Kastner (2017) conducted an interview with Michael Spooner. Other studies use interview as the main means of data collection such as The Working Lives of Writing Center Directors by Nikki Caswell, Jackie Grutsch McKinney, and Rebecca Jackson (2016). Cilla Dowse and Wilhelm van Rensberg (2015) used questionnaires and interviews to study a week-long graduate student workshop on proposal writing during which non-native English-speaking students worked with each other in small groups and individually with tutors.  

2.2.3 Mixed methods research is the combination of qualitative and quantitative data, notably suggested for composition studies by Cindy Johanek (2000). Several subsequent studies have used mixed methods, especially the combination of survey and interview. One such study is “All the Best Intentions: Graduate Student Administrative Professional Development in Practice” by Karen Rowan (2009) in which she both surveyed and interviewed Graduate Student Administrators and writing center directors about their experiences with mentorship. Kate Pantelides (2010) used mixed methods as she combined a survey of writing center clients with a discourse analysis of a face-to-face writing conference about composing online discussion board posts. J. M. Dembsey’s 2017 study compared Grammarly® feedback and asynchronous online consultants’ feedback both qualitatively and quantitatively. Another mixed methods study, Perdue & Driscoll’s “Context Matters: Centering Writing Center Administrators’ Institutional Status and Scholarly Identity” (2017) examined surveys and interviews on writing center administrators’ attitudes toward research. Robert Weissbach and Ruth Pfluger (2018) conducted an experiential mixed-methods study of peer tutors working with engineering students in which they devised a tutor training program. Their data consisted of completed logs and evaluations.

2.2.4 Textual analysis is the most prevalent research method in this sample. Types of texts analyzed those related to writing centers such as publications about writing centers, session reports, artifacts from online tutoring sessions, and marketing materials such as websites. Student texts brought to the writing center are not commonly analyzed. Ligget, Jordan, and Price, who themselves analyzed writing center publications, describe text-based studies as a process of “gather[ing] a set of pertinent documents, look[ing] for and interpret[ing] selected patterns to create a new reading of the texts, and explain[ing] what the patterns contribute to disciplinary understanding” (2011, p. 66). 

2.2.4.1 Publications related to writing centers . Liggett, Jordan and Price (2011) reviewed writing center literature and then revised North’s categories of research, including developing some of their own categories. Although they described their research as theoretical, it can also be classified as a textual analysis of publications related to writing centers. Driscoll and Perdue (2012) used a grounded-theory approach to analyze WCJ articles, evaluating articles for the degree to which they used RAD research. Lerner, in “The Unpromising Present of Writing Center Studies: Author and Citation Patterns in Writing Center Journal , 1980-2009” (2014) analyzed the frequency and patterns of citations of journal articles. Kathryn Valentine (2018) used content analysis to review tutor guidebooks for material on listening.

2.2.4.2 Session reports. Rita Malenczyk, in “‘I Thought I’d Put That in to Amuse You’: Tutor Reports as Organizational Narrative” (2013) analyzed the stories tutors told in their session reports through the lens of organizational theory. Laurel Raymond and Zarah Quinn (2012), both undergraduates at the time of writing, quantitatively examined tutor reports to identify students’ most common priorities for sessions and tutors’ most common concerns. Mary Hendengren and Martin Lockerd (2017) analyzed exit surveys, especially looking at negative student feedback, to assist writing centers in improving their practice.   

2.2.4.3 Artifacts from online tutoring sessions. Carol Severino along with Jeffrey Swenson and Jia Zhu (2009) identified quantitative differences between feedback requests from native English speakers and non-native English speakers in asynchronous tutoring artifacts (written communication) between students and tutors. Severino and Shih-Ni Prim (2015) conducted a quantitative study of online tutor responses to Chinese students’ word choice errors. In another focus on asynchronous tutoring, Cristyn Elder (2018) analyzed thousands of emails sent to Purdue Writing Lab’s “OWL Mail” and categorized and quantified them according to the type of help they asked for.

2.2.4.4 Writing center materials. Muriel Harris, in “Making our Institutional Discourse Sticky: Suggestions for Effective Rhetoric,” studied writing center websites, brochures, and reports through a rhetorical lens. Randall Monty (2015) used Critical Discourse Analysis to examine the data of official International Writing Centers Association publications, blogs, and websites; tutor response forms; and a corpus of individual writing center websites. In his words, Monty’s goal was “to understand how writing center stakeholders create disciplinary place and space” through rhetoric and the resulting discourse (p. 33). Sherry Wynn Perdue, Diana Driscoll, and Andrew Petrykowski studied writing center job advertisements from 2004-2014 presenting quantitative results and offering suggestions for the future. Calle Àlvarez (2017) used documentary investigation to examine materials, such as articles, books, and websites, from nineteen Colombian writing centers. 

2.2.5 Descriptive studies are those that focus on the kind of writing center data that North called for in 1984—data from the tutoring session, such as direct observation. Using data from tutoring sessions, Mackiewicz and Thompson (2014) described tutors’ use of politeness with tutees to enact motivational scaffolding. Sarah Nakamaru (2010) observed tutoring sessions to qualitatively and quantitatively categorize the types of lexical feedback tutors were giving. Robert Brown (2010) used discourse analysis to study representations of audiences, both real and imagined, in recorded tutoring sessions focused on personal statements for medical school applications. Yelin Zhao (2018) conducted a conversation analysis of tutoring sessions between a non-native English-speaking tutor and one non-native English speaker and a native English speaker tutee. Sam Van Horne (2012) coded student papers for revisions carried out after the conference, interviewed each consultant, and observed their writing conferences.

2.2.6 Theoretical research. Although theoretical research is not empirical and does not meet the requirements for RAD research, it is present on several research typologies, so it is included here as well. Jackie Grutsch McKinney’s “New Media Matters: Tutoring in the Late Age of Print” (2009) is a highly anthologized theoretical article about tutoring new media. Romeo Garcia’s “Unmaking Gringo Centers” (2017) is another example of theoretical research. Roberta Kjesrud and Mary Wislocki (2011) published on introspection and personal experience regarding administrative conflict. Finally, Nordlof (2014) conducted a theoretical investigation of Vygotsky and scaffolding in relation to writing center work.

2.2.7 Archival research is becoming common in composition research (Hayden, 2015; Ritter, 2012), and I predict writing center research will follow. Two articles in the data set using archival research are Lori Salem’s “Opportunity and Transformation: How Writing Centers are Positioned in the Political Landscape of Higher Education in the United States” (2014) and Stacy Nall’s “Remembering Writing Center Partnerships: Recommendations for Archival Strategies” (2014).

2.2.8 Focus groups are a useful, though underutilized, method of gathering data. One recent example of writing center research that uses focus groups is Sue Dinitz and Susanmarie Harrington’s 2014 study on tutoring sessions in history and political science to shed light on the disciplinary/generalist tutor debate. Their study included faculty focus groups and transcripts of tutoring sessions. Another example of focus group research is Tammy Conrad-Salvo and John M. Spartz’s 2012 study on the usefulness of Kurzweil text-to-speech software to students when revising papers.

2.2.9 Quasi-experiment. Experiments in the writing center context are very rare since it is difficult to control circumstances and generate random placements. Holly Ryan and Danielle Kane (2015) presented a quasi-experiment by looking at different types of classroom visits and their effectiveness. Because they used existing classes, the placement in groups was not completely random, making it quasi-experimental. Luuk Van Waes, Daphne van Weijen, and Mariëlle Leijten (2014) studied students’ use of an online writing lab (with static content) as they worked on completing an assignment through a quasi-experiment where they used a keystroke-capturing system to determine students’ writing processes. Trenia Napier, Jill Parrott, Erin Presley, and Leslie Valley (2018) used a quasi-experiment design—holistically grading research papers and comparing classes that participated to those that did not—to examine the effectiveness of their program.

2.2.10 Quantitative methods are not very common in writing center studies. Rowena Yeats, Peter Reddy, Anne Wheeler, Carl Senior, and John Murray (2010) used quantitative methods to mine data of those who had used the writing center versus those who did not. They found “a highly significant association between writing centre attendance and achievement” as well as retention (p. 499). Notably, although a dissertation and not a peer-reviewed article, D. Elton Ball (2014) used quantitative methods to measure the connection between writing center attendance and retention, which also showed positive results. In “Instruction, Cognitive Scaffolding, and Motivational Scaffolding in Writing Center Tutoring” Mackiewicz and Thompson (2014) presented a quantitative study of ten highly rated tutoring sessions and coded them for different kinds of scaffolding moves made by the tutors. They found that successful tutors used instruction more often than either kind of scaffolding.

2.2.11 Tutor research grows out of careful planning and reflection on practice. It differs from reflection and narrative in its focus on designing research from the onset. Carol Severino and Elizabeth Deifell, (2011) who have used a tutor research approach, explain that “The rationale for tutor-research is that tutors need to know as much as possible about their students as writers and learners to tutor them better; this knowledge is then communicated as research to tutors in similar situations with similar students” (p. 31). As an example, Christian Brendel (2012) carefully designed a comparative multilingual tutoring approach, practiced it with a particular tutee, and interviewed the tutee. Severino and Prim (2015) designed a project to focus on how a multilingual tutee learned and used vocabulary as well as the types of lexical errors he made. Severino and Prim collected data including interviews with stakeholders, paper drafts, written comments on drafts, tutoring logs, written observations, and a cloze (fill-in-the-blank) test. This type of research is very promising, and the field would benefit from seeing more of it in the future.

2.2.12 Narrative inquiry uses stories as the unit of analysis. Emily Isaacs and Ellen Kolba (2009) used narrative inquiry to investigate a program that placed teacher candidates into middle and secondary school writing centers. Through stories and reflections they presented their findings. This too is different from a simple “here’s what we did; here’s what happened” genre because they deliberately and thoughtfully used this method. Caraly Lassig, Lisette Dillon, and Carmel Dietzman (2013) used narrative inquiry to describe a graduate writing group.

2.2.13 Grounded theory (GT) has become a very popular research methodology in writing center studies. GT may be “a method, a technique, a methodology, a framework, a paradigm, a social process, a perspective, a meta-theory of research….GT is probably all of these at the same time” (Holton & Walsh, 2017, p. 161). Dagmar Scharold (2017) used GT in a study on cooperative tutoring, which is a kind of tutoring where there are two tutors and one tutee. So she could immerse herself in her data over a period of months, she used software (Transana) that plays the audio of interviews at the same time as the transcripts in a form of “closed captioning” (p. 40). Neal Lerner and Kyle Oddis’s study (2018) on the citation practices of WCJ authors also used grounded theory. As Lerner had looked at the actual citations in a previous study (2014), this study used surveys and interviews with authors.

2.2.14 Case study . True case studies are still rare in writing center studies. One of the only stand-alone case studies in the recent literature is Natalie DeCheck’s (2010) use of qualitative coding and semi-structured interviews to describe the relationship between one tutor/tutee pair; DeCheck was an undergraduate at the time of the study. Other case studies are often combined with another form of research. For instance, Severino and Deifell (2011) combined case study with tutor research, and Steven Corbett (2011) used case study alongside rhetorical and discourse analysis, ethnographic methods, questionnaires, interviews, and course materials.

2.2.15 Usability testing. Although usability testing is an unusual method in writing center studies, Alan Brizee and colleagues (2012) described usability testing for accessibility of the Purdue Online Writing Lab for people with blindness and low vision. Other writing center researchers could perform usability testing of writing center websites and online writing centers as well as brochures and handouts.

2.2.16 Institutional ethnography. Michelle Miley (2017) conducted an institutional ethnography of her new institution, which functioned as research and as an orientation and acculturation to her new situation. Interestingly, I found no actual published ethnographies of writing centers in my data set, although they abound in dissertations.

3: Conclusion

This review serves as an introduction to the theories and research methods current in writing center studies or at least that are finding their way to publication. Interested readers may also want to consult Theories and Methods of Writing Center Studies (Mackiewicz & Babcock, 2020). Of note in this review of published methods is the lack of teacher research, case studies, and ethnographic studies, which, in concept, would be the ideal types of writing center research. The reason for this is that writing center practitioners value story and experience. Teacher research is natural because reflective tutors do this type of research as they conduct their tutorials: trying things out, reflecting on them, refining them, re-trying, etc. Much of the research that is not actually research but presentation of narrative could be better framed as bounded case study with the simple change of getting Institutional Review Board clearance and collecting data systematically. Finally, ethnography, with an embedded researcher detailing the daily life and practices of a writing center, would provide scientific rigor along with the literary craft in the final write-up that many writing center practitioners desire.

One reviewer of this piece wanted me to express my own opinion about these research methods and theories. Although that was not my intent—my intent was to reflect what was going on in the literature but not what I thought should be going on—I can offer some thoughts. As I noted briefly above, teacher/practitioner research seems the most logical method for writing centers who employ reflective tutors and directors. Case study and ethnography also offer compelling possibilities. In the past, linguistics, discourse analysis, politeness, and analysis of talk were more prominent. However, see books and articles by Mackiewicz and others listed here in the “Descriptive” section. Taking a step back, overall, I cannot recommend specific theories or methods to researchers. The theory or method a researcher chooses will depend on their personal philosophy and outlook. John W. Creswell and J. David Creswell (2018) explained that one’s research method can and should be determined by one’s worldview, which they describe as Postpositivist, Constructivist, Transformative, or Pragmatic, each of which will be attracted by different methods. Postpositivists, who seek data and objectivity, will tend toward to quantitative measures such as surveys and experiments. Constructivists, on the other hand, recognize that different actors will have different understandings of a situation and tend toward qualitative measures such as narrative inquiry, case study, and ethnography. Transformative researchers will seek to “confront social oppression” and will tend toward action research or theories like Critical Discourse Analysis (p. 9). Finally, a researcher with a Pragmatic worldview will seek to solve problems using all the available means and may tend toward mixed methods studies and multiple theories and methods of analysis.

A better understanding of theory and research could assist writing center practitioners to get to where North wanted composition to be 30 years ago: to have a “way to frame its central problems” and a “method by which to set about trying to resolve them” (n.p.). The threads of research and theory can work together as the warp and weft of the fabric of writing center scholarship.

  • Kenneth Burke was a rhetorician and scholar who popularized the idea of knowledge as an unending conversation; the parlor is where the conversation takes place. ↑
  • Works in linguistic justice are also appearing. See Linguistic Justice on Campus (Schreiber, Lee, Johnson, & Fahim, 2021) which has a section on writing centers. See also several articles in issue 39.1-2 of the Writing Center Journal. ↑

Adler-Kassner, L., & Wardle, E. (2015). Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies . Utah State University Press.

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.

Àlvarez, G. Y. C. (2017). Perspectiva de los centros de escritura en Colombia. Hallazgos, 14 (28), 145–172.

Babcock, R. D., Dean, A., Hinsley, V., & Taft, A. (2019). Evaluating the synthesis model of tutoring across the educational spectrum.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus , 57 , 57–77.  https://doi.org/10.5842/57-0-810. https://spilplus.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/810

Babcock, R. D., Manning, K., Rogers, T., Goff, C., & McCain, A. (2012). A synthesis of qualitative studies of writing center tutoring, 1983-2006. Peter Lang.

Babcock, R. D., & Thonus, T. (2012). Researching the writing center . Peter Lang.

Babcock, R. D., & Thonus, T. (2018). Researching the writing center . Revised Edition. Peter Lang.

Ball, D. E. (2014). The effects of writing centers upon the engagement and retention of developmental composition students in one Missouri community college [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Lindenwood University.

Bawarshi, A., & Pelkowski, S. (1999). Postcolonialism and the idea of a writing center. Writing Center Journal, 19 (2), 41–58.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberg, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Basic.

Bibb, B. (2012). Bringing balance to the table: Comprehensive writing instruction in the tutoring session. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 92–104.

Boquet, E. (1999). “Our little secret”: A history of writing centers, pre-to-post open admissions. College Composition and Communication, 50 (3), 463–482.

Boquet, E. (2002). Noise from the writing center . Utah State University Press.

Brendel, C. (2012). Tutoring between language with comparative multilingual tutoring. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 78–91.

Brizee, A., Sousa, M., & Driscoll, D. N. (2012). Writing centers and students with disabilities: The user-centered approach, participatory design, and empirical research as collaborative methodologies. Computers & Composition , 29 (4), 341–366.

Bromley, Pam, Northway, Kara, Schonberg, Eliana. (2016, April 12). Transfer and dispositions in writing centers: A cross-institutional mixed-methods study. Across the Disciplines, 13 (1). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/articles/bromleyetal2016.pdf

Brown, R. (2010). Representing audiences in writing center consultation: A discourse analysis. Writing Center Journal , 30 (2), 72–99.

Bruffee, K. (1984a). Collaborative learning and the “Conversation of Mankind”. College English , 46 (7), 635–652.

Bruffee, K. (1984b). Peer tutoring and the conversation of mankind. In G. A. Olson ( Ed.), Writing Centers: Theory and Administration ( pp. 3-15). NCTE.

Cahill, L., Rentscher, M., Jones, J., Simpson, D., & Chase, K. (2017). Developing core principles for tutor education. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship , 42 (1-2), 10–17.

Carino, P. (1995). Theorizing the writing center: An uneasy task. Dialogue: A Journal for Writing Specialists, 2 (1): 23–27. Reprinted in Robert W. Barnett and Jacob S. Blumner, eds. The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice New York: Pearson-Longman, 2008. pp. 124-138.

Carino, P. (2003). Power and authority in peer tutoring. In M. A. Pemberton & J. Kinkead (Eds.), Center Will Hold (pp. 96–113). University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46nxnq.9

Caswell, N. I., Grutsch McKinney, J., & Jackson, R. (2016). The working lives of new writing center directors. Utah State University Press.

Coffey, K. M., Gelms, B., Johnson, C. C., & McKee, H. A. (2017). Consulting with collaborative writing teams. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 147–182.

Conrad-Salvo, T., & Spartz, J. M. (2012). Listening to revise: What a study about text-to- speech software taught us about students’ expectations for technology use in the writing center. Writing Center Journal , 32 (2), 40–59.

Corbett, S. J. (2011). Using case study multi-methods to investigate close(r) collaboration: Course-based tutoring and the directive/nondirective instructional continuum. Writing Center Journal , 31 (1), 55–81.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design (5 th ed.). Sage.

Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2005). What do reading tutors do? A naturalistic study of more or less experienced tutors in reading. Discourse Processes, 40 , 83–113.

DeCheck, N. (2010). The power of common interest for motivating writers: A case study. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 28–38.

Dembsey, J. M. (2017). Closing the Grammarly® gaps: A study of claims and feedback from an online grammar program. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 63–100.

Denny, H. C. (2010). Facing the center: Toward an identity politics of one-to-one mentoring . Utah State University Press.

Devet, B. (2015). The writing center and transfer of learning: A primer for directors. Writing Center Journal , 35 (1), 119–151.

Dinitz, S. (2018). Changing peer tutors’ threshold concepts about writing. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, 42 (7-8), 2-9.

Dinitz, S., & Harrington, S. (2014). The role of disciplinary expertise in shaping writing tutorials. Writing Center Journal , 33 (2), 73–98.

Dowse, C., & van Rensburg, W. (2015). “A hundred times we learned from one another” Collaborative learning in an academic writing workshop. South African Journal of Education , 35 (1), 1–12.

Driscoll, D., & Perdue, S. W. (2012). Theory, lore, and more: An analysis of RAD research in The Writing Center Journal , 1980-2009. Writing Center Journal , 32 (2), 11–39.

Ede, L. (1989). Writing as a social process: A theoretical foundation for writing centers? Writing Center Journal , 9 (2), 3–13.

Elder, C. L. (2018). Dear OWL mail: Centering writers’ concerns in online tutor preparation. Writing Center Journal, 36 (2), 147–173.

Fitzgerald, L. (2012). Writing center scholarship: A “Big cross-disciplinary tent.” In K. Ritter & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Exploring composition studies: Sites, issues, and perspectives (pp . 73-88). Utah State University Press.

Fitzgerald, L., & Ianetta, M. (2016). The Oxford guide for writing tutors . Oxford University Press.

Garcia, R. (2017). Unmaking gringo centers. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 29–60.

Geller, A. E., & Denny, H. (2013). Of ladybugs, low status, and loving the job: Writing center professionals navigating their career. The Writing Center Journal , 33 (1), 96–129.

Geller, A. E., Eodice, M., Condon, F., Carroll, M., & Boquet, E. H. (2007). The everyday writing center: A community of practice. Utah State University Press.

Gillespie, P., Gillam, A., Brown, L. F., & Stay, B. (Eds.). (2001). Writing center research: Extending the conversation (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604026

Greenfield, L. & Rowan, K. (2011). Writing centers and the new racism: A call for sustainable dialogue and change. Utah State University Press.

Grutsch McKinney, J. (2009). New media matters: Tutoring in the late age of print. Writing Center Journal , 29 (2), 28–51.

Grutsch McKinney, J. (2013). Peripheral visions for writing centers . Utah State University Press.

Grutsch McKinney, J. (2016). Strategies for writing center research. Parlor Press.

Harris, M. (2010). Making our institutional discourse sticky: Suggestions for effective rhetoric. Writing Center Journal , 30 (2), 47–71.

Hayden, W. (2015). “Gifts” of the archives: A pedagogy for undergraduate research. College Composition and Communication, 66 (3), 402-426. Retrieved December 16, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.utpb.edu/stable/43490936

Hendengren, M., & Lockerd, M. (2017). Tell me what you really think: Lessons from negative student feedback. Writing Center Journal, 36 (1), 131–145.

Hill, H. N. (2016). Tutoring for transfer: The benefits of teaching writing center tutors about transfer theory. The Writing Center Journal , 35 (3), 77–102.

Hill, H. (2020). Transfer theory: A guide to transfer-focused writing center research. In J. Mackiewicz & R. D. Babcock (Eds.), Theories and methods of writing center studies (pp. 59-67) . Routledge.

Hobson, E. H. (1992). Maintaining our balance: Walking the tightrope of competing epistemologies. In R. W. Barnett & J. S. Blumner (Eds.), The Longman guide to writing center theory and practice (pp. 100-109). Pearson.

Horner, W. (1929). The economy of the laboratory method. The English Journal, 18 , 214–221.

Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative & quantitative data. Sage.

Isaacs, E., & Kolba, E. (2009). Mutual benefits: Pre-service teachers and public school students in the writing center. Writing Center Journal , 29 (2), 52–74.

Johanek, C. (2000). Composing research: A contextualist paradigm for rhetoric and composition . Utah State University Press.

Kastner, S. (2017). Soundbites from dialogues with Michael Spooner: A happened, happening, then retrospective on a career publishing, writing, reading, and responding. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 19–29.

Kirsch, G., & Sullivan, P. (1992). Methods and methodology in composition research . Southern Illinois University Press.

Kjesrud, R. D., & Wislocki, M. A. (2011). Learning and leading through conflicted Collaborations. Writing Center Journal , 31 (2), 89–116.

Lassig, C. J., Dillon, L. H., & Diezmann, C. M. (2013). Student or scholar? Transforming identities through a research writing group. Studies in Continuing Education , 35 (3), 299–314.

Lerner, N. (2006). Time warp: Historical representations of writing center directors. In C. Murphy & B. L. Stay (Eds.), The writing center director’s resource book (pp. 3–11). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lerner, N. (2007). “Seeking Knowledge about Writing Centers in Numbers, Talk, and Archives.” Writing at the       Center: Proceedings of the 2004 Thomas R. Watson Conference, Louisville, Kentucky . Ed. Jo Ann Griffin, Carol Mattingly and Michele Eodice. International Writing Centers Association, 2007.

Lerner, N. (2009a). Dissertations and theses on writing centers. Writing Lab Newsletter , 33 (7), 6 9. 

Lerner, N. (2009b). The idea of a writing laboratory . Southern Illinois University Press.

Lerner, N. (2014). The unpromising present of writing center studies: Author and citation patterns in Writing Center Journal , 1980-2009. Writing Center Journal , 34 (1), 67–102.

Lerner, N., & Oddis, K. (2018). The social lives of citations: How and why Writing Center Journal authors cite sources. Writing Center Journal , 36 (2), 235–262.

Liggett, S. (2014). Review essay: Divergent ways of creating knowledge in writing center studies. The Writing Center Journal , 34 (1), 135–151.

Liggett, S., Jordan, K., & Price, S. (2011). Mapping knowledge-making in writing center research: A taxonomy of methodologies. The Writing Center Journal , 31 (2), 50–88.

Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “Deep Theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25 (3), 353–388.

Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the idea of a writing center. Writing Center Journal , 12 (1), 3–11.

Mackiewicz, J., & Babcock, R. (2020). Theories and methods of writing center studies: A practical guide. Routledge.

Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2013). Motivational scaffolding, politeness, and writing center tutoring. The Writing Center Journal, 33 (1), 38–73.

Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2014). Instruction, cognitive scaffolding, and motivational scaffolding in writing center tutoring. Composition Studies , 42 (1), 54–78.

Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2018). Talk about writing: The tutoring strategies of experienced writing center tutors 2 nd Ed. Routledge.

Malenczyk, R. (2013). “I thought I’d put that in to amuse you”: Tutor reports as organizational narrative. Writing Center Journal , 33 (1), 74–95.

McAndrew, D. A., & Reigstad, T. J. (2001). Tutoring writing: A practical guide for conferences. Boynton-Cook.

Miley, M. (2016). Feminist mothering: A theory/practice for writing center administration. Writing Lab Newsletter , 41 (1-2), 17–24.

Miley, M. (2017). Looking up: Mapping writing center work through institutional ethnography. Writing Center Journal , 36 (1), 103–129.

Miley, M. (2020). Bringing feminist theory home. In J. Mackiewicz & R. D. Babcock (Eds.), Theories and methods of writing center studies (pp. 48-58) . Routledge.

Monty, R. (2015). The writing center as cultural and interdisciplinary contact zone. Palgrave Pivot.

Murphy, C. (1994). The writing center and social constructionist theory. In J. A. Mullin & R. Wallace (Eds.), Intersections: Theory-practice in the writing center (pp. 161-171). NCTE.

Nakamaru, S. (2010). Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and US educated multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing , 19 (2), 95–113.

Nall, S. (2014). Remembering writing center partnerships: Recommendations for archival strategies. Writing Center Journal , 33 (2), 101–121.

Napier, T., Parrott, J. M., Presley, E., & Valley, L. A. (2018). A collaborative, trilateral approach to bridging the information literacy gap in student writing. College & Research Libraries, 79 (1), 120-145. Retrieved from EBSCOhost, doi:10.5860/crl.79.1.120.

Neaderhiser, S., & Wolfe, J. (2009). Between technological endorsement and resistance: The state of online writing centers. The Writing Center Journal , 29 (1), 49–77.

Neuleib, J. W. (1984). Research in the writing center: What to do and where to go to become research oriented. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, 9 (4), 10–13.

Nickaly, J. (2012). Got guilt? Consultant guilt in the writing center community. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 14–27.

Nordlof, J. (2014). Vygotsky, scaffolding, and the role of theory in writing center work. Writing Center Journal , 34 (1), 45–64.

Nordlof, J. (2020). Vygotskyan learning theory. In J. Mackiewicz & R. D. Babcock (Eds.), Theories and methods of writing center studies (pp. 11–19) . Routledge.

North, S. (1987). The making of knowledge in composition: Portrait of an emerging field. Boynton-Cook.

Nowacek, R. S., & Hughes, B. (2015). Threshold concepts in the writing center: Scaffolding the development of tutor expertise. In L. Adler-Kassner & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies (pp. 171-183) . Utah State University Press.

Pantelides, K. (2010). Negotiating what’s at stake in informal writing in the writing center Computers & Composition , 29 (4), 269–279.

Perdue, S. W., & Driscoll, D. (2017). Context matters: Centering writing center administrators’ institutional status and scholarly identity. Writing Center Journal, 36 (1), 185–214.

Perdue, S. W., Driscoll, D., & Petrykowski. A. (2018). Center ing institutional status and scholarly identity: An analysis of writing center administration position announcements, 2004-2014. Writing Center Journ al, 36 (2), 265–293.

Portanova, P., Rifenburg, J. M., & Roen, D. (2017). Contemporary perspectives on cognition and writing . The WAC Clearing House and University Press of Colorado.

Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession , 1991 : 33–40.

Raymond, L., & Quinn, Z. (2012). What a writer wants: Assessing fulfillment of student goals in writing center tutoring sessions. Writing Center Journal , 32 (1), 64–77.

Ritter, K. (2012). To know her own history: Writing at the woman’s college, 1943-1963 . University of Pittsburgh Press.

Rowan, K. (2009). All the best intentions: Graduate student administrative professional development in practice. Writing Center Journal , 29 (1), 11–48.

Ryan, H., & Kane, D. (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of writing center classroom visits: An evidence-based approach. Writing Center Journal , 34 (2), 145–172.

Salem, L. (2014). Opportunity and transformation: How writing centers are positioned in the political landscape of higher education in the United States. Writing Center Journal , 34 (1), 15–43.

Schreiber, B. R., Lee, E., Johnson, J. T., & Fahim, N. (2021). Linguistic justice on campus : Multilingual Matters.

Scharold, D. (2017). Challenge accepted: Cooperative tutoring as an alternative to one-on-one tutoring. The Writing Center Journal , 36 (2), 31–55.

Severino, C., & Deifell, E. (2011). Empowering L2 tutoring: A case study of a second language writer’s vocabulary learning. Writing Center Journal , 31 (1), 25–54.

Severino, C., & Prim, S. N. (2015). Word choice errors in Chinese students’ English writing and how online writing center tutors respond to them. Writing Center Journal , 34 (2), 115–143. 

Severino, C., Swenson, J., & Zhu, J. (2009). A comparison of online feedback requests by non-native English speaking and native English-speaking writers. Writing Center Journal, 29 (1), 106–129.

Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25 , 389–411.

Smith, F. (1987). Joining the literacy club. Heinemann.

Sunstein, B. S. (1998). Moveable feasts, liminal spaces: Writing centers and the state of in betweenness. Writing Center Journal, 18 (2), 7–26.

Thompson, I. (2009). Scaffolding in the writing center: A microanalysis of an experienced tutor’s verbal and nonverbal tutoring strategies. Written Communication , 26 (4), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309342364

Threadgill, E. (2010). Writing center work bridging boundaries: An interview with Muriel Harris. Journal of Developmental Education , 34 (2), 20–25.

Truesdell, T. (2007). Not Choosing Sides: Using Directive and Non-Directive Methodology in a Writing Session. Writing Lab Newsletter , 31 (6), 7–11.

Valentine, K. (2018). The undercurrents of listening: A qualitative content analysis of listening in writing tutor guidebooks. Writing Center Journal , 36 (2), 89–115.

Valles, S. B., Babcock, R. D., & Jackson, K. K. (2017). Writing center administrators and diversity: A survey . The Peer Review, 1 (1), n.p.

Van Horne, S. (2012). Characterizing successful “intervention” in the writing center conference. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 10 (1), n.p. Retrieved from http://www.praxisuwc.com/van-horn-101 .

Van Waes, L., van Weijen, D., & Leijten, M. (2014). Learning to write in an online writing center: The effect of learning styles on the writing process. Computers & Education, 73 , 60–71.

Weissbach, R. S., & Pflueger, R. C. (2018). Collaborating with writing centers on students. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication , 61 (2), 206–220.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving . Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry , 17 , 89-100. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic862383.files/Wood1976.pdf

Woolbright, M. (1993). The politics of tutoring: Feminism within the patriarchy. Writing Center Journal , 13 (1), 16–31.

Yeats, R., Reddy, P., Wheeler, A., Senior, C., & Murray, J. (2010). What a difference a writing centre makes: A small scale study. Education + Training, 52 (6-7), 499–507.

Zhao, Y. (2018). Student interactions with a native speaker tutor and a nonnative speaker tutor at an American writing center. Writing Center Journal , 36 (2), 57–87.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

  • PLOS Biology
  • PLOS Climate
  • PLOS Complex Systems
  • PLOS Computational Biology
  • PLOS Digital Health
  • PLOS Genetics
  • PLOS Global Public Health
  • PLOS Medicine
  • PLOS Mental Health
  • PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
  • PLOS Pathogens
  • PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
  • PLOS Collections

Welcome to the PLOS Writing Center

Your source for scientific writing & publishing essentials.

A collection of free, practical guides and hands-on resources for authors looking to improve their scientific publishing skillset.

ARTICLE-WRITING ESSENTIALS

Your title is the first thing anyone who reads your article is going to see, and for many it will be where they stop reading. Learn how to write a title that helps readers find your article, draws your audience in and sets the stage for your research!

The abstract is your chance to let your readers know what they can expect from your article. Learn how to write a clear, and concise abstract that will keep your audience reading.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability. Learn what to include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate.

In many fields, a statistical analysis forms the heart of both the methods and results sections of a manuscript. Learn how to report statistical analyses, and what other context is important for publication success and future reproducibility.

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

Ensuring your manuscript is well-written makes it easier for editors, reviewers and readers to understand your work. Avoiding language errors can help accelerate review and minimize delays in the publication of your research.

The PLOS Writing Toolbox

Delivered to your inbox every two weeks, the Writing Toolbox features practical advice and tools you can use to prepare a research manuscript for submission success and build your scientific writing skillset. 

Discover how to navigate the peer review and publishing process, beyond writing your article.

The path to publication can be unsettling when you’re unsure what’s happening with your paper. Learn about staple journal workflows to see the detailed steps required for ensuring a rigorous and ethical publication.

Reputable journals screen for ethics at submission—and inability to pass ethics checks is one of the most common reasons for rejection. Unfortunately, once a study has begun, it’s often too late to secure the requisite ethical reviews and clearances. Learn how to prepare for publication success by ensuring your study meets all ethical requirements before work begins.

From preregistration, to preprints, to publication—learn how and when to share your study.

How you store your data matters. Even after you publish your article, your data needs to be accessible and useable for the long term so that other researchers can continue building on your work. Good data management practices make your data discoverable and easy to use, promote a strong foundation for reproducibility and increase your likelihood of citations.

You’ve just spent months completing your study, writing up the results and submitting to your top-choice journal. Now the feedback is in and it’s time to revise. Set out a clear plan for your response to keep yourself on-track and ensure edits don’t fall through the cracks.

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher.

Are you actively preparing a submission for a PLOS journal? Select the relevant journal below for more detailed guidelines. 

How to Write an Article  

Share the lessons of the Writing Center in a live, interactive training.

Access tried-and-tested training modules, complete with slides and talking points, workshop activities, and more.

International Writing Centers Association

International Writing Centers Association

Writing Center Journal

writing center articles

Editors: Harry Denny, Purdue University; Anna Sicari, Oklahoma State University; and Romeo Garcia, University of Utah

The Writing Center Journal is an IWCA sponsored publication. 

Share this:

  • Utility Menu

University Logo

26158766f7f76c0d163cbc4d15ae3f59

writing center articles

  • Questions about Expos?
  • Writing Support for Instructors

The Writing Center is a place for Harvard students to get help with any aspect of their writing, from specific assignments to general writing skills. The Writing Center is staffed by trained  tutors who provide individual conferences to students working on any writing assignment. You don't have to have a finished paper to come for a conference. You can come with ideas, notes, or a draft. 

Drop-in hours have ended for the semester. We are open by appointment through the week of December 11.

Check out our new Strategies for Essay Writing handouts . Each handout focuses on a different aspect of the writing process.

Quick Links

  • Schedule an Appointment
  • English Grammar and Language Tutor
  • Drop-in hours
  • Harvard Guide to Using Sources
  • Departmental Writing Fellows
  • Writing Advice: The Harvard Writing Tutor Blog

f843b002cfdf5245b15daf53036e870a

Localist Online Calendar Software

  • https://www.instagram.com/harvardwritingcenter/ Instagram

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

OWL logo

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The Purdue On-Campus Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

University of Notre Dame

University Writing Program

College of Arts and Letters

  • Home ›

Writing Center

Book an Appointment 

email: [email protected]

Fall/Spring Hours: M-Th 10-10; F 10-4; Sun 1-7

Dedicated Tutors

The Writing Center at the University of Notre Dame is dedicated to helping students become better writers. Our tutors accomplish this goal by listening attentively in writing conferences, reading papers carefully, and asking questions that can help writers better express their ideas and construct their arguments.

Writing Center tutors work with writers during all stages of the writing process — from understanding an assignment and developing a thesis to organizing the paper and revising the final product.  

Who can use the Writing Center?

Writing Center Tutoring Session

We work with all students, first-years to seniors, undergraduates and graduates, and native and non-native English speakers. We see students from virtually all disciplines and colleges within the University.

We also work with Fulbright and Rhodes Scholar candidates, law and medical school applicants, students writing senior theses, and scholars preparing articles for publication. In short, we serve both inexperienced and experienced student writers, offering an audience for and response to their written work.

At our  Main Writing Center Office,  our undergraduate and graduate tutors meet with writers from a wide range of backgrounds working on projects at any stage of the writing process. 

The  Presenter Center  offers the opportunity to meet with a tutor in order to workshop and discuss presentation projects, whether for a class, a conference, a job talk, or beyond.

Our  remote appointments  are helpful for students and researchers studying or working abroad or away from campus as well as those who simply prefer to discuss writing from the comfort of their own home (or office, or coffee shop). 

At our  Legal Writing Center , graduate students and researchers are invited to make appointments with tutors prepared to work with writing projects specialized in the field of law.

Our  Physics Research Writing Consultant  offers tutoring sessions for graduate students and other researchers working on physics writing projects.

Make an appointment

Make an appointment at any of our Writing Center locations through  our online scheduler . Please note that we often have high demand, so it will be in your best interest to schedule early. You can access the waitlist by clicking on the clock to the left of the date on the online scheduler or by using the "WAITING LIST" link found in the bottom right-hand corner of each day's schedule.

Writing Center instruction conforms to the University of Notre Dame  honor code . Tutors do not write or edit papers for students. Instead, we help students acquire writing and editing strategies to achieve their own goals as writers.

What happens during a Writing Center appointment?

Writing Center tutors work to engage in authentic dialogue with student writers, meeting them wherever they happen to be in the writing process to provide thoughtful feedback about their writing projects.

When a student writer or presenter comes into one of our Writing Center locations, the tutor greets the writer and starts a conversation about the assignment, working to identify the writer's concerns and needs before examining any notes or draft material brought to the session. The tutor and the writer decide on a game plan for the session, setting goals about what might reasonably be addressed during the 45-minute session and establishing a plan for how to accomplish those goals.

If the writer has brought a draft, the tutor will ask him/her to read the draft aloud while both the tutor and the writer make notes. The tutor will seek to identify both strengths and weaknesses in the draft. The conversation that follows the reading of the draft is guided by the tutor, who asks questions to help the writer identify for themselves the most pressing needs for revision. As the conversation progresses, the tutor helps the writer to discover strategies for revision that will help address the writer's concerns and needs.

At the end of the session, the tutor will help the student identify a concrete set of steps to take next in the revision process. After the writer leaves, the tutor will write a Tutor Note, a brief report recording what was addressed and accomplished during the session.

ENGL 1A: Critical Thinking & Writing (Jalal)

  • Searching Tips
  • Finding Articles
  • Finding Books
  • Citing Your Sources

SCU Writing Center - The HUB

writing center articles

Need writing assistance? See the SCU Writing Center - known as The HUB .

writing center articles

Step 1: Choose a Topic

Choosing a topic you are curious about.

The first step in the search process is to choose a topic.  Choosing a topic you are curious about and interested in will make the research process easier and more enjoyable.

Step 2: Develop a Strategy

Searching is strategic.

Searching can be difficult, but beginning with a search strategy can make your database searches more successful.  Start with brainstorming keywords.

Step 3: Select a Database

Choosing the right database.

Once you have a topic and keywords, select a database to find books and articles. For books, use the OSCAR library catalog.  For articles, select a library database, starting with  some of the  recommended  databases  on this guide.  You can also browse the  Database by subject list  on the library web page.  

Step 4: Find Articles

Finding scholarly articles.

Once you have selected a database, use your keywords to search and find full text scholarly articles.

31 - finding a scholarly article from Joshua Vossler on Vimeo .

Step 5: Repeat

Searching is a cycle.

Searching is sometimes referred to as a "cycle".  In other words, you often will need to search multiple times and in many different places.  You might modify or adjust your topic, brainstorm new keywords, and try searching in additional databases.  Repeating your search strategy can help you find additional and more refined sources.

Step 6: Organize Sources

Organizing sources for the writing process.

The final step in the search process is to organize your sources for the writing process.  By organizing and annotating the sources you have find, you will save time and improve the quality of your research paper.

11 - organizing sources for the writing process from Joshua Vossler on Vimeo .

  • << Previous: Home
  • Next: Finding Articles >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 16, 2024 10:59 AM
  • URL: https://libguides.scu.edu/c.php?g=1380810

UT Austin Creates Writers’ Retreat at Former John Steinbeck Home

Steinbeck House

AUSTIN, Texas — One of the top creative writing programs in the world, The University of Texas at Austin’s Michener Center for Writers, is establishing a retreat for internationally known writers at the Nobel Prize-winning author John Steinbeck’s former residence in Sag Harbor, New York.

A collaboration with the Sag Harbor Partnership, the Township of Southampton and the New York State Assembly and heirs of the Steinbeck estate, the Steinbeck Writers’ Retreat will preserve the legacy of the author’s work and home, provide a residence where writers can work, create opportunities for students, and foster engagement with the Sag Harbor and UT communities.

“The Steinbeck Writers’ Retreat will allow writers the breathing room to unlock their creativity in one of the most inspiring settings on the East Coast as they walk in the steps of one of time’s greatest authors, John Steinbeck,” said UT President Jay Hartzell. “This immersive in-residence program will benefit students, past and present, and broader society. We are grateful to the late Elaine Steinbeck and her heirs who have donated the John Steinbeck Collection to her alma mater and recommended UT’s Michener Center to operate this retreat that will allow writers to pursue ambitious work for generations to come.”

While in residence, writers will live and write in Steinbeck’s former home, where he wrote his final two books and learned that he had won the Nobel Prize. During their stays, writers will also deliver public readings, workshops or other events in the Sag Harbor community and participate in programming with Michener Center students on the UT campus.

Residencies will be offered to writers of fiction, poetry, plays and scripts at different stages of their careers — including both established and promising, emerging writers. Additionally, residencies will be offered to alumni of the Michener Center for Writers .

“During his lifetime, John Steinbeck was committed to supporting young writers and enabling them to succeed,” said Bret Johnston, director of the Michener Center and Steinbeck Writers’ Retreat. “The Steinbeck Writers’ Retreat will continue Steinbeck’s legacy and offer Michener Center alumni an unparalleled resource among creative writing programs.”

The partnership builds upon the University’s existing academic ties to the Steinbeck estate. The Harry Ransom Center is home to the John Steinbeck Collection , which provides the author’s archives of articles, novels, short stories and correspondence for scholars and the public.

John Steinbeck’s wife Elaine Anderson Steinbeck was born in Austin and studied drama at UT Austin. Later, she was instrumental in establishing the John Steinbeck Collection at the Ransom Center.

The first visiting author to stay at the Steinbeck Writers’ Retreat will be Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist and playwright Ayad Akhtar , whose work has been published and performed in more than two dozen languages. He is the winner of the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for drama for “Disgraced” and recipient of the 2021 American Book Award for “Homeland Elegies.” Akhtar was named the New York State Author, succeeding Sag Harbor native son Colson Whitehead, by the New York State Writers Institute in 2021.

The University has received donations for startup funding for the Steinbeck Writers’ Retreat and is now fundraising to establish an endowment to support the retreat, including funds for fellowships, operating costs and property expenses.

Explore Latest Articles

Feb 15, 2024

5 Questions With Blanca Gamez, Director of Parking and Transportation Services

PTS Director Blanca Gamez stands next to an exit at the San Antonio Garage. Photo by Trent Lesikar.

Electrochemistry Pioneer and Texas Science Legend Allen Bard Dies

Black and white portrait of a man with gray hair in front of a chalk board

Why People Hate to Wait

writing center articles

California State University, Long Beach

  • Colleges & Degrees
  • Academic Calendar
  • International Education
  • Graduate Studies
  • Accreditation
  • Tuition and Fees
  • Parking & Maps
  • Careers with CSULB
  • Alumni Home
  • Alumni Volunteering
  • Alumni Giving

Campus Life

  • Centers & Organizations
  • Commencement
  • Student Life
  • Office of the President
  • Office of the Provost
  • Administration & Finance
  • Student Affairs
  • University Relations & Development
  • Information Technology
  • Beach Shops
  • Campus Directory
  • Enrollment Services
  • Financial Aid
  • Schedule of Classes
  • Student Records
  • 49er Foundation
  • Research Foundation

California State University Long Beach

1250 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90840 562.985.4111

pyramid

MLA & APA Workshops - Spring 2024

The UWC is offering online Citation Workshops  for APA and MLA writing style and format. These online workshops will provide a format overview, in-text and reference page citations, and other writing tips. This workshop is recommended for everyone who needs a refresher or is new to either writing style and format. 

The following are the workshop dates and times : 

  • APA Workshop : Friday, March 1 from 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm
  • MLA Workshop : Friday, march 1 from 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 
  • Click here to register!

UWC Citation Flyer 1 Spring 2024

  • Newsletters
  • Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

One Woman’s Story

Lucy sante refuses to tell anyone’s tale but her own, but every reader will find something to relate to in her remarkable memoir of transition..

In 2021 the writer then known as Luc Sante—author of the classic 1991 urban history Low Life: Lures and Snares of Old New York —sent an email to a group of friends and colleagues. In it, she explained that she was in fact Lucy Sante and would now embrace the gender identity she had suppressed for the previous 66 years of her life. The most startling thing about this news wasn’t Sante’s transition, but the fact that she had put it off for so long. In her captivating new memoir, I Heard Her Call My Name , Sante mentions that, while living in New York in the 1970s and ’80s, she had been close to the photographer Nan Goldin, a celebrated portraitist of the downtown gay and transgender communities. Sante describes herself as first and foremost a “bohemian,” a type of person of which there are “vanishingly few” these days. Proud gender nonconformists, drag queens, and the people who admired them were all around her during her New York years—yet, in the midst of what was surely the most accepting environment available at that time, she still didn’t feel free to be herself.

Apart from Sante’s age when she announced her gender identity, there isn’t anything particularly unusual or new to her transition story. Technology played a pivotal role, from an app that feminizes selfies and showed her the woman’s face she had so long denied to the online communities where she sought advice and support in coming out. She describes the physical effects of taking hormones, the process of constructing a whole new wardrobe, the stress her transition imposed on her long-term relationship. What makes I Heard Her Call My Name extraordinary aren’t the events Sante describes but the way she describes them. Her writing remains as perceptive, elegant, and striking as ever, and furthermore it is fearlessly honest—a quality that often seems almost as rare as Sante-style bohemians.

I Heard Her Call My Name: A Memoir of Transition

By Lucy Sante. Penguin Press.

Slate receives a commission when you purchase items using the links on this page. Thank you for your support.

“I’m allergic to theory,” Sante writes, “and even more to the kind of shibboleth rhetoric (and its principal by-product, a defensive posture) that pervades much—though by no means all—of trans writing.” This pertains to the concepts in I Heard Her Call My Name as well as to the book’s language. Sante frames the book as a double memoir, one part describing her conventional biography—all of it lived in the persona of Luc—and the other recounting her progress since her “egg cracked” (one of the instances in which she does use trans lingo—presumably not of the shibboleth variety). “Luc’s” history is interesting in its own right: The Belgian-born only child of indecisive Belgian immigrants, Sante spent childhood pinging back and forth between New Jersey and Belgium, the country her mother loved and forever yearned for.

Luc was a foreigner who felt truly at home only in New York City, the version of it haunted by the crime, social chaos, and economic woes of the 1970s. It was a run-down but still thrilling city where misfits, artists, eccentrics, and adventurers could afford to live, albeit in “hovels.” “Aside from the inevitable stereo,” Sante writes of these apartments, “they contained little in the way of current consumer goods; almost everything we owned was secondhand and likely scavenged.” Still, she makes it sound exhilarating. Luc was a punk aesthete whose friends included Jean-Michel Basquiat, Jim Jarmusch, the Bush Tetras, Lux Interior, Darryl Pinckney, and Elizabeth Hardwick. Luc wrote, and Lucy still writes, for the New York Review of Books. It has been a life, if not of riches, certainly of an enviably authentic late 20 th -century coolness.

Despite being surrounded by every variety of rebel and free spirit, Lucy hid behind the facade of Luc—a male persona she describes as “saturnine, cerebral, a bit remote, a bit owlish, possibly ‘quirky,’ coming very close to asexual despite my best intentions.” She was and is deeply and comprehensively attracted to women, toward whom she has felt an almost abject reverence. (She often writes of not “deserving” to be one.) “I had tried so hard for so long to be a heterosexual man,” she writes, “that the need to behave like one took me over like a puppeteer whenever I found myself in the presence of a woman I found attractive.” But maleness itself, “with its acrid musk, its stubble, its needful dangling genitalia, its oafishness and clumsiness, its sense of mission and conquest,” reminded her only of “the aspects of myself I most despised.”

Sante’s mother, a stringent Catholic, openly mourned Marie-Luce, the stillborn daughter who preceded Luc. “She often called me by feminine diminutives,” Sante writes of those early years. “I’m certain my mother wanted me to be a girl.” She feared men, and longed for a child who would be an extension of herself. When Sante was young, her mother “searched my room on any pretext and read every bit of writing she found there. She wanted an account of everywhere I went and everyone I met.” Following each of two events signaling Sante’s independence—going off to college and getting married—her mother had nervous breakdowns and had to be hospitalized. She felt her child had betrayed her by growing up, and she never forgave Sante for “leaving” her. To the end of her mother’s life, Sante writes, “we hated each other so intensely it was almost like love.”

Did this fierce, tortuous relationship contribute to Sante’s gender dysphoria? Maybe? Probably? Sante seems to think so but shows no interest in determining exactly how much—or in arguing that she was simply born that way. Making categorical declarations about such unknowable things is an activist’s proclivity, and Sante lacks it. I Heard Her Call My Name is a revealing memoir, yet a resolutely private one as well, concerned only with documenting how this life and transition have felt to a single, idiosyncratic human being. “I don’t wish to be a spokesperson,” Sante writes in the book’s final chapter. She is less interested in establishing what made her what she is than she is in delivering a truthful accounting of what it has felt like to live almost seven decades denying “the consuming furnace at the center of my life.” The shame and unworthiness she still feels (despite supportive friends and many years of therapy) serve as reminders of just how hard it can be to shake off the bindings laid on during our childhoods.

As Sante tells it, her life as Luc combined the performance of a male, intellectual identity and the relinquishing of almost every major decision to her female partners. “My marriages were succeeding monarchies,” she writes in one bravura paragraph that recapitulates lists of the lifestyle markers of the ’80s (“We ate at restaurants where you were served seven squid-ink ravioli on a plate the size of a bicycle wheel”) and ’90s (“We joined a food co-op and experimented with previously unknown leafy greens”). “I underwent all these things passively,” Sante writes; “they were weather. But at the same time they seemed alien, and my participation ceremonial, as if I were visiting a foreign country and for diplomatic reasons had to undergo all the observances, however inexplicable.”

While Sante’s particular predicament was unusual, this sensation of falseness will be familiar to many. You don’t have to suffer from gender dysphoria to feel that you “could mimic this or that specific behavior, but couldn’t sufficiently understand the underlying logic to knit the behaviors into a convincing personality.” A paradox of this breed of confessional writing, when it’s done as well as Sante does it, is that the more precisely and frankly the writer describes an individual experience, the easier it becomes for readers to recognize it as similar to dilemmas of their own. Even the one area in Sante’s life in which she felt confident, her writing, became contaminated by her unwillingness to face herself. “In the absence of any other notably masculine qualities,” she observes, it was writing that “became the principal signifier of my male identity, and gradually my social personality became coextensive with my work.” In time, “my work didn’t reflect me; I reflected it. So Luc was in many ways a walking byline.”

Today Luc remains a presence that, Sante says, “I sometimes like to think of as my sad-sack ex-husband,” a hilariously homely and even fond way of accommodating a shucked-off identity. Sante’s writings have meant so much to so many readers it would be wrenching to have to dismiss them as the product of a person so self-deceiving they merely served to prop up the fraud. There has always been much truth in her work, flourishing like those renegade artists in the squalor of 1970s New York. And now there is even more.

comscore beacon

Facts.net

Turn Your Curiosity Into Discovery

Latest facts.

9 Facts About AI Interior Design

9 Facts About AI Interior Design

6 Facts About AI Writing Tool

6 Facts About AI Writing Tool

35 facts about lyubertsy.

Tate Lewin

Modified & Updated: 08 Sep 2023

Published: 22 Jul 2023

Modified: 08 Sep 2023

35-facts-about-lyubertsy

Lyubertsy is a fascinating city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia. With a rich history and vibrant culture, Lyubertsy has become a prominent destination for both tourists and locals alike. This article will take you on a journey through 35 interesting facts about Lyubertsy, providing you with a comprehensive overview of this enchanting city. From its historical landmarks and architectural wonders to its renowned festivals and local cuisine, Lyubertsy has something to offer for everyone. So, buckle up and get ready to explore the hidden gems and fascinating trivia that make Lyubertsy such a remarkable place to visit.

Lyubertsy is a vibrant city located in the Moscow Oblast of Russia.

Nestled in the southeastern part of Moscow , Lyubertsy is known for its rich history, cultural heritage, and beautiful landscapes.

The city is named after the Russian nobleman Dmitry Lyubertsy.

Dmitry Lyubertsy was a prominent figure in the 19th century and played a significant role in the development of the region.

Lyubertsy is home to a population of over 190,000 people.

With a large and diverse community, the city offers a unique blend of traditions, languages, and cultures.

The city is famous for its industrial sector.

Lyubertsy is known for its manufacturing plants, including the production of machinery, electronics, and textiles.

Lyubertsy has a rich cultural heritage.

The city is home to several museums, art galleries, and theaters, showcasing the talent and creativity of its residents.

The Lyubertsy District is dotted with picturesque parks and green spaces.

Residents and visitors can enjoy leisurely walks, picnics, and outdoor activities in the city’s numerous parks and gardens.

Lyubertsy is well-connected to Moscow through an extensive transportation network.

Commuting to and from the city is convenient, thanks to the availability of buses, trains, and metro lines.

The city experiences a continental climate.

Winters in Lyubertsy are cold and snowy, while summers are warm and moderately humid.

Lyubertsy has a rich sporting culture.

The city is home to various sports complexes, arenas, and stadiums, encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle among its residents.

The famous Russian singer, Alla Pugacheva, was born in Lyubertsy.

Alla Pugacheva, often referred to as the “Queen of Russian Pop,” is a beloved figure in the music industry.

The Lyubertsy Railway Station is an important transportation hub.

It connects the city to other parts of Russia, making travel accessible and convenient for residents and visitors.

Lyubertsy is known for its vibrant cultural events and festivals.

Throughout the year, the city hosts various celebrations, showcasing its rich traditions, music, and dance.

The city has a thriving educational system.

Lyubertsy is home to several schools, colleges, and universities, providing quality education to its residents.

Lyubertsy offers a range of recreational activities.

Residents and visitors can enjoy swimming, ice skating, skiing, and other outdoor activities in the city’s sports complexes and recreational centers.

The Lyubertsy History Museum preserves the city’s historical artifacts.

The museum showcases the rich history and heritage of Lyubertsy, allowing visitors to delve into its past.

The city has a variety of shopping centers and markets.

From local boutiques to large malls, Lyubertsy offers plenty of options for shopping enthusiasts.

Lyubertsy has a strong sense of community.

Residents actively participate in local events, volunteer programs, and social initiatives, fostering a close-knit and supportive environment.

The city is known for its delicious Russian cuisine.

Visitors can savor traditional dishes such as borscht, pelmeni, and blini in Lyubertsy’s charming restaurants and cafes.

Lyubertsy is surrounded by picturesque countryside.

Nature lovers can explore the nearby forests, lakes, and rivers, offering tranquility and an escape from the city’s hustle and bustle.

The city has several architectural landmarks.

From historical buildings to modern structures, Lyubertsy boasts a diverse range of architectural styles.

Lyubertsy is a hub for arts and culture.

The city embraces various art forms, including music, theater, painting, and sculpture.

Lyubertsy has a low crime rate.

The city’s focus on security and community well-being contributes to a safe and secure living environment.

Lyubertsy celebrates its rich heritage through folk festivals.

Traditional music, dance, and costumes take center stage during these vibrant celebrations.

The city has a well-developed healthcare system.

Residents have access to modern medical facilities and clinics, ensuring their well-being.

Lyubertsy is a city of historical significance.

It played a crucial role in Russia’s past and preserves its heritage through museums and historical sites.

Lyubertsy is home to many talented artists and musicians.

The city’s vibrant creative scene showcases local talent and promotes artistic expression.

The city has a strong sense of environmental consciousness.

Efforts are made to promote sustainability, green initiatives, and conservation of natural resources.

Lyubertsy hosts various cultural exhibitions and events.

These events provide a platform for artists, craftsmen, and cultural enthusiasts to showcase their work.

The city is known for its warm hospitality.

Visitors can experience the friendly and welcoming nature of the locals during their stay in Lyubertsy.

Lyubertsy is a center for academic research and innovation.

The city promotes scientific development and fosters collaboration between educational institutions and industries.

The Lyubertsy City Park is a popular recreational spot.

With its lush greenery, walking trails, and recreational facilities, the park offers a refreshing escape for residents.

Lyubertsy celebrates its rich history through historical reenactments.

These events allow visitors to step back in time and experience the city’s past firsthand.

The city is known for its impressive Soviet-era architecture.

Visitors can admire the unique architectural style and grandeur of buildings constructed during the Soviet era.

Lyubertsy is well-connected to other major cities in Russia.

Traveling to and from Lyubertsy is convenient due to its excellent transportation infrastructure.

Lyubertsy offers a high standard of living.

The city provides its residents with quality amenities, services, and a favorable quality of life.

With its rich history, cultural heritage, and vibrant community, Lyubertsy offers a unique and compelling experience for residents and visitors alike. Whether it’s exploring the city’s museums, enjoying the scenic beauty of its parks, or immersing oneself in its art and culture, Lyubertsy has something for everyone. Discover the charm and allure of this remarkable city and experience the warmth and hospitality of its residents.

In conclusion, Lyubertsy is a fascinating city with a rich history, vibrant culture, and plenty of attractions to explore. From its beautiful parks and gardens to its impressive architectural landmarks, Lyubertsy offers something for everyone. Whether you’re interested in history, art, or simply enjoying the local cuisine, this city has it all. So, if you’re planning a visit to Russia, be sure to include Lyubertsy in your itinerary. You won’t be disappointed!

Q: What is the population of Lyubertsy?

A: The population of Lyubertsy is around 180,000.

Q: What are some popular tourist attractions in Lyubertsy?

A: Some popular tourist attractions in Lyubertsy include Lyubertsy Museum of Local Lore, Novodevichy Cemetery, and St. Nicholas Cathedral.

Q: Is Lyubertsy a safe city for tourists?

A: Yes, Lyubertsy is generally considered to be a safe city for tourists. However, it is always recommended to exercise caution and take normal safety precautions.

Q: What is the weather like in Lyubertsy?

A: The weather in Lyubertsy can vary depending on the season. Summers are generally mild and warm, while winters can be cold with snowfall.

Q: Are there good transportation options in Lyubertsy?

A: Yes, Lyubertsy is well-connected to Moscow and other nearby cities through public transportation options like buses and trains.

Q: Are there any local specialties or dishes to try in Lyubertsy?

A: Lyubertsy is known for its delicious Russian cuisine, including dishes like borscht, pelmeni, and blini.

Q: Can I find accommodations in Lyubertsy?

A: Yes, there are a variety of accommodations available in Lyubertsy, ranging from hotels to guesthouses and apartments for rent.

Q: Is English widely spoken in Lyubertsy?

A: While English may not be widely spoken, many people in the tourist areas and establishments can understand and communicate in English.

Share this Fact:

  • Articles   >

The Moscow Metro Museum of Art: 10 Must-See Stations

There are few times one can claim having been on the subway all afternoon and loving it, but the Moscow Metro provides just that opportunity.  While many cities boast famous public transport systems—New York’s subway, London’s underground, San Salvador’s chicken buses—few warrant hours of exploration.  Moscow is different: Take one ride on the Metro, and you’ll find out that this network of railways can be so much more than point A to B drudgery.

The Metro began operating in 1935 with just thirteen stations, covering less than seven miles, but it has since grown into the world’s third busiest transit system ( Tokyo is first ), spanning about 200 miles and offering over 180 stops along the way.  The construction of the Metro began under Joseph Stalin’s command, and being one of the USSR’s most ambitious building projects, the iron-fisted leader instructed designers to create a place full of svet (radiance) and svetloe budushchee (a radiant future), a palace for the people and a tribute to the Mother nation.

Consequently, the Metro is among the most memorable attractions in Moscow.  The stations provide a unique collection of public art, comparable to anything the city’s galleries have to offer and providing a sense of the Soviet era, which is absent from the State National History Museum.  Even better, touring the Metro delivers palpable, experiential moments, which many of us don’t get standing in front of painting or a case of coins.

Though tours are available , discovering the Moscow Metro on your own provides a much more comprehensive, truer experience, something much less sterile than following a guide.  What better place is there to see the “real” Moscow than on mass transit: A few hours will expose you to characters and caricatures you’ll be hard-pressed to find dining near the Bolshoi Theater.  You become part of the attraction, hear it in the screech of the train, feel it as hurried commuters brush by: The Metro sucks you beneath the city and churns you into the mix.

With the recommendations of our born-and-bred Muscovite students, my wife Emma and I have just taken a self-guided tour of what some locals consider the top ten stations of the Moscow Metro. What most satisfied me about our Metro tour was the sense of adventure .  I loved following our route on the maps of the wagon walls as we circled the city, plotting out the course to the subsequent stops; having the weird sensation of being underground for nearly four hours; and discovering the next cavern of treasures, playing Indiana Jones for the afternoon, piecing together fragments of Russia’s mysterious history.  It’s the ultimate interactive museum.

Top Ten Stations (In order of appearance)

Kievskaya station.

writing center articles

Kievskaya Station went public in March of 1937, the rails between it and Park Kultury Station being the first to cross the Moscow River.  Kievskaya is full of mosaics depicting aristocratic scenes of Russian life, with great cameo appearances by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin.  Each work has a Cyrillic title/explanation etched in the marble beneath it; however, if your Russian is rusty, you can just appreciate seeing familiar revolutionary dates like 1905 ( the Russian Revolution ) and 1917 ( the October Revolution ).

Mayakovskaya Station

Mayakovskaya Station ranks in my top three most notable Metro stations. Mayakovskaya just feels right, done Art Deco but no sense of gaudiness or pretention.  The arches are adorned with rounded chrome piping and create feeling of being in a jukebox, but the roof’s expansive mosaics of the sky are the real showstopper.  Subjects cleverly range from looking up at a high jumper, workers atop a building, spires of Orthodox cathedrals, to nimble aircraft humming by, a fleet of prop planes spelling out CCCP in the bluest of skies.

Novoslobodskaya Station

writing center articles

Novoslobodskaya is the Metro’s unique stained glass station.  Each column has its own distinctive panels of colorful glass, most of them with a floral theme, some of them capturing the odd sailor, musician, artist, gardener, or stenographer in action.  The glass is framed in Art Deco metalwork, and there is the lovely aspect of discovering panels in the less frequented haunches of the hall (on the trackside, between the incoming staircases).  Novosblod is, I’ve been told, the favorite amongst out-of-town visitors.

Komsomolskaya Station

Komsomolskaya Station is one of palatial grandeur.  It seems both magnificent and obligatory, like the presidential palace of a colonial city.  The yellow ceiling has leafy, white concrete garland and a series of golden military mosaics accenting the tile mosaics of glorified Russian life.  Switching lines here, the hallway has an Alice-in-Wonderland feel, impossibly long with decorative tile walls, culminating in a very old station left in a remarkable state of disrepair, offering a really tangible glimpse behind the palace walls.

Dostoevskaya Station

writing center articles

Dostoevskaya is a tribute to the late, great hero of Russian literature .  The station at first glance seems bare and unimpressive, a stark marble platform without a whiff of reassembled chips of tile.  However, two columns have eerie stone inlay collages of scenes from Dostoevsky’s work, including The Idiot , The Brothers Karamazov , and Crime and Punishment.   Then, standing at the center of the platform, the marble creates a kaleidoscope of reflections.  At the entrance, there is a large, inlay portrait of the author.

Chkalovskaya Station

Chkalovskaya does space Art Deco style (yet again).  Chrome borders all.  Passageways with curvy overhangs create the illusion of walking through the belly of a chic, new-age spacecraft.  There are two (kos)mosaics, one at each end, with planetary subjects.  Transferring here brings you above ground, where some rather elaborate metalwork is on display.  By name similarity only, I’d expected Komsolskaya Station to deliver some kosmonaut décor; instead, it was Chkalovskaya that took us up to the space station.

Elektrozavodskaya Station

writing center articles

Elektrozavodskaya is full of marble reliefs of workers, men and women, laboring through the different stages of industry.  The superhuman figures are round with muscles, Hollywood fit, and seemingly undeterred by each Herculean task they respectively perform.  The station is chocked with brass, from hammer and sickle light fixtures to beautiful, angular framework up the innards of the columns.  The station’s art pieces are less clever or extravagant than others, but identifying the different stages of industry is entertaining.

Baumanskaya Statio

Baumanskaya Station is the only stop that wasn’t suggested by the students.  Pulling in, the network of statues was just too enticing: Out of half-circle depressions in the platform’s columns, the USSR’s proud and powerful labor force again flaunts its success.  Pilots, blacksmiths, politicians, and artists have all congregated, posing amongst more Art Deco framing.  At the far end, a massive Soviet flag dons the face of Lenin and banners for ’05, ’17, and ‘45.  Standing in front of the flag, you can play with the echoing roof.

Ploshchad Revolutsii Station

writing center articles

Novokuznetskaya Station

Novokuznetskaya Station finishes off this tour, more or less, where it started: beautiful mosaics.  This station recalls the skyward-facing pieces from Mayakovskaya (Station #2), only with a little larger pictures in a more cramped, very trafficked area.  Due to a line of street lamps in the center of the platform, it has the atmosphere of a bustling market.  The more inventive sky scenes include a man on a ladder, women picking fruit, and a tank-dozer being craned in.  The station’s also has a handsome black-and-white stone mural.

Here is a map and a brief description of our route:

Start at (1)Kievskaya on the “ring line” (look for the squares at the bottom of the platform signs to help you navigate—the ring line is #5, brown line) and go north to Belorusskaya, make a quick switch to the Dark Green/#2 line, and go south one stop to (2)Mayakovskaya.  Backtrack to the ring line—Brown/#5—and continue north, getting off at (3)Novosblodskaya and (4)Komsolskaya.  At Komsolskaya Station, transfer to the Red/#1 line, go south for two stops to Chistye Prudy, and get on the Light Green/#10 line going north.  Take a look at (5)Dostoevskaya Station on the northern segment of Light Green/#10 line then change directions and head south to (6)Chkalovskaya, which offers a transfer to the Dark Blue/#3 line, going west, away from the city center.  Have a look (7)Elektroskaya Station before backtracking into the center of Moscow, stopping off at (8)Baumskaya, getting off the Dark Blue/#3 line at (9)Ploschad Revolyutsii.  Change to the Dark Green/#2 line and go south one stop to see (10)Novokuznetskaya Station.

Check out our new Moscow Indie Travel Guide , book a flight to Moscow and read 10 Bars with Views Worth Blowing the Budget For

Jonathon Engels, formerly a patron saint of misadventure, has been stumbling his way across cultural borders since 2005 and is currently volunteering in the mountains outside of Antigua, Guatemala.  For more of his work, visit his website and blog .

writing center articles

Photo credits:   SergeyRod , all others courtesy of the author and may not be used without permission

IMAGES

  1. 5 Essential Things Every Writing Center Needs

    writing center articles

  2. Setting Up a Writing Center: 8 Basics

    writing center articles

  3. How to Set Up an Inviting Preschool Writing Center

    writing center articles

  4. 9 Easy Ideas for Writing Centers for 1st and 2nd Graders

    writing center articles

  5. 6 Must Have Tools To Keep In Your Writing Center

    writing center articles

  6. Everything You Need for an Amazing Writing Center

    writing center articles

VIDEO

  1. WRITING AN ESSAY

  2. Writing Center Second Meeting (Technical Writing)

  3. ₹50,000 to write an article? 😱

  4. Setting Up A Writing Center In A First Grade Classroom #writingactivities #writingcenter #firstgrade

  5. Reading academic articles & writing their summaries-Advanced Academic Reading and Writing Urdu/Hindi

  6. How To Write an Article in 7 Easy Steps #articlewriting

COMMENTS

  1. Articles

    Articles - The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Articles What this handout is about When we use nouns in English, articles (a, an, and the) specify which and how many nouns we mean. To choose the correct article for your sentence, you need to answer two questions.

  2. The Writing Center Journal on JSTOR

    The Writing Center Journal was launched in 1980 by Lil Brannon and Steven North and remains the primary research journal in the field of writing centers. WCJ is the official journal of the International Writing Centers Association, an Assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English. Journal information 2023 (Vol. 41) OPEN ACCESS OPEN ACCESS

  3. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship

    Across four issues per year and through numerous online resources WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship promotes exchanges on challenges in tutoring theory and methodology, handling ESL issues, directing a writing center, training tutors, designing and expanding centers, and using tutorial theory and pedagogy. Volume 48, Issue 2, Winter 2023

  4. A Conversational Approach: Using Writing Center Pedagogy in Commenting

    Teachers can transform students' learning through a holistic writing curriculum. Similarly, tutors can scafold this transfer process. According to Hughes, Nowacek, and Hall (2016), transfer occurs on a spectrum: (1) monologuing (only tutor talk), (2) asking questions, and/or (3) forming a co-constructed dialogue.

  5. The Idea of a Writing Center

    Stephen M. North The Idea of a Writing Center This is an essay that began out of frustration. Despite the reference to writing centers in the title, it is not addressed to a writing center audience but to what is, for my purposes, just the opposite: those not involved with writing centers.

  6. Writing Center Theory and Research: A Review

    Abstract This study reviews the current underlying theories relevant to writing centers as well as the research methods being used in the early 21st century. The first section covers the theories used in writing center scholarship from the 1980s onward based on influential articles and texts.

  7. Flagship journal of IWCA, the International Writing Centers Association

    WCJ is the flagship journal of the International Writing Centers Association (IWCA). This academic peer-reviewed journal for scholarship intersects with writing centers in a wide-range of institutional contexts.

  8. Writing Center

    Welcome to the PLOS Writing Center Your source for scientific writing & publishing essentials A collection of free, practical guides and hands-on resources for authors looking to improve their scientific publishing skillset. ARTICLE-WRITING ESSENTIALS Learn how to prepare each of the key components of a research article from start to finish.

  9. Reading and Writing Centers: A Primer for Writing Center ...

    Ellen C. Carillo Reading and Writing Centers: AA Primer for Writing Center Professionals Abstract Reading and writing are widely understood as connected practices, but writing center studies has been slow to join the larger conversation in composition studies about writing's relationship to reading.

  10. Writing Center Journal

    Writing Center Journal Volume 39 Issue 1 Volume 39 Issue 1 / Volume 39 Issue 2 Article 11 12-1-2021 NES and NNES Student Writers' Very Long Turns in Writing Center Conferences Jo Mackiewicz Iowa State University Zach Gasior Iowa Western Community College

  11. Writing Center Journal

    WCJ is published twice annually. For more information about the journal, including how to submit an article or review for consideration, please go to WCJ 's website: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/wcj/ Editors: Harry Denny, Purdue University; Anna Sicari, Oklahoma State University; and Romeo Garcia, University of Utah

  12. Harvard College Writing Center

    Welcome The Writing Center is a place for Harvard students to get help with any aspect of their writing, from specific assignments to general writing skills. The Writing Center is staffed by trained tutors who provide individual conferences to students working on any writing assignment.

  13. The Writing Center

    1. a number of, a piece of, a section of. 2. 60 miles an hour, $200 an hour. It is important to mention that there is really difficult to identify the difference with generic reference and indefinite reference with plural and non-count nouns; however, it is not necessary since they have the same grammatical rules.

  14. Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

    Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects.

  15. Writing center

    Writing centers provide students with assistance on their papers, projects, reports, multi-modal documents, web pages, and other writerly needs across disciplines.

  16. Writing Center

    Writing Center tutors work with writers during all stages of the writing process — from understanding an assignment and developing a thesis to organizing the paper and revising the final product. Who can use the Writing Center?

  17. Scholars' Writing Is Often Unclear. Why That Matters for the K ...

    Articles, books, you name it—it takes me forever to figure out what to say, how to structure it, and what tone to strike. But there is one kind of writing that comes fairly easily: blog posts.

  18. Searching Tips

    Choosing the Right Database. Once you have a topic and keywords, select a database to find books and articles. For books, use the OSCAR library catalog. For articles, select a library database, starting with some of the recommended databases on this guide. You can also browse the Database by subject list on the library web page.

  19. Front Matter on JSTOR

    The Writing Center Journal was launched in 1980 by Lil Brannon & Stephen North and remains the primary research journal in the field of writing centers. WCJ is an oficial journal of the International Writing Centers Association, an Assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English. Previous editors of the journal are listed below.

  20. UT Austin Creates Writers' Retreat at Former John Steinbeck Home

    AUSTIN, Texas — One of the top creative writing programs in the world, The University of Texas at Austin's Michener Center for Writers, is establishing a retreat for internationally known writers at the Nobel Prize-winning author John Steinbeck's former residence in Sag Harbor, New York.

  21. About DeepL Write

    This article covers the following topics: About DeepL Write; Using DeepL Write; Customizing your texts; About DeepL Write. DeepL Write is an AI-powered writing assistant that can improve your written communication. It will help you with your writing by correcting the grammar, spelling, and punctuation, as well as providing suggestions for ...

  22. MLA & APA Workshops

    The UWC is offering online Citation Workshops for APA and MLA writing style and format. These online workshops will provide a format overview, in-text and reference page citations, and other writing tips. This workshop is recommended for everyone who needs a refresher or is new to either writing style and format.

  23. Lucy Sante's transition memoir I Heard Her Call My Name, reviewed

    In 2021 the writer then known as Luc Sante—author of the classic 1991 urban history Low Life: Lures and Snares of Old New York—sent an email to a group of friends and colleagues. In it, she ...

  24. 35 Facts About Lyubertsy

    Lyubertsy is a center for academic research and innovation. The city promotes scientific development and fosters collaboration between educational institutions and industries. The Lyubertsy City Park is a popular recreational spot. With its lush greenery, walking trails, and recreational facilities, the park offers a refreshing escape for ...

  25. Olga Romanova (journalist)

    Olga Abramovich was born on March 28, 1966, in Lyubertsy, Russia. In 1988 Romanova graduated from the Moscow College of Finance, the Finance Department. 1988-1991 she was working as a journalist at the news agency "IMA Press". 1991 - 1994 Romanova worked as a Moscow correspondent for the Institutional Investor Magazine.

  26. The Meaningful and Significant Impact of Writing Center Visits on

    Jesús José Salazar, The Meaningful and Significant Impact of Writing Center Visits on College Writing Performance, The Writing Center Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1/2, 40th Anniversary Special Double Issue (2021), pp. 55-96

  27. The Moscow Metro Museum of Art: 10 Must-See Stations

    Take a look at (5)Dostoevskaya Station on the northern segment of Light Green/#10 line then change directions and head south to (6)Chkalovskaya, which offers a transfer to the Dark Blue/#3 line, going west, away from the city center. Have a look (7)Elektroskaya Station before backtracking into the center of Moscow, stopping off at (8)Baumskaya ...

  28. Business customer guide: End of Life (EOL) for use of Authy API with

    All Authy Support content has been migrated to help.twilio.com, where you can continue to find helpful Authy articles, and escalate your issues to our Support team. We encourage you to update your bookmarks and begin using the new site today for all your needs related to Authy.

  29. Takeaways from Fani Willis' stunning testimony in Georgia

    Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives on stage for a Get Out The Vote rally at the North Charleston Convention Center on February 14, 2024 in North ...