By Fahimah Saiyed
Abstract
This research paper explores whether tutees benefit from consistently working with the same tutors and how this affects session productivity and satisfaction. While existing research highlights the advantages of consistency in tutor-tutee pairings, few studies examine this dynamic in multicultural and multilingual university contexts, leaving a gap in the understanding of writing center interactions. To address this, I conducted semi-structured interviews with two tutor-tutee pairs at the American University of Sharjah, focusing on their experiences with consistent pairings. The findings revealed that sessions with consistent pairings were more productive due to the reduced need for repeatedly building rapport. Tutees felt their needs were better addressed, with a preference for directive feedback. Over time, tutees required less guidance, highlighting the efficiency gained through familiarity. While potential drawbacks— such as the risk of imposition of a single tutor’s writing style on a regular tutee—were acknowledged, participants agreed that the benefits of consistency outweighed these concerns. This study contributes to the limited research on writing centers in multicultural and multilingual settings, offering insights into how recurrent tutor-tutee relationships can improve writing support. The findings suggest that writing centers could enhance their services by encouraging consistent pairings, particularly for students from diverse linguistic and educational backgrounds, to better address their unique needs.
Keywords: writing center productivity, multilingual university, writing center practices, tutor-tutee relationships, familiarity in tutoring sessions
Introduction
In any academic institution, writing centers are often seen as crucial support spaces where students can improve their writing skills. These centers are designed not just to provide feedback on written work, but to foster a sense of security and trust, which is essential for effective learning. In fact, for writing centers to truly function as supportive mentoring spaces, they must first be recognized as safe spaces where students feel comfortable exploring and developing their academic skills (Banda, 2019). This foundation of safety and trust is particularly significant when we consider tutor-tutee relationships. When students seek assistance, the quality of their experience can significantly influence their motivation to return and engage in the improvement of their writing skills. For instance, a student may visit the writing center and work with a tutor they have met only once. This session can feel impersonal, focusing primarily on formal exchanges without establishing a deeper connection. On the contrary, a different scenario may involve a student working with a tutor who remembers the student’s previous work, strengths, and areas of improvement. The conversation feels more personalized, and they walk out feeling more confident with their writing abilities. Now consider: which scenario is more likely to motivate someone to return and continue improving their writing abilities?
One particular challenge I have observed and experienced as a tutee in the writing center is the need to repeatedly establish rapport and communicate my primary areas of concern. As someone who frequently visits the Writing Center at the American University of Sharjah (AUS), I initially approached different tutors in each session. However, while the feedback was constructive, I noticed that each session required significant time to build rapport, establish what worked for me, and for the tutor to understand my writing style. It was only when I unintentionally worked with the same tutor across multiple sessions that I began to recognize the impact of familiarity on the tutoring process. The tutor quickly became attuned to my writing style and recurring challenges, allowing us to focus more efficiently on refining my drafts. This consistent pairing not only improved the quality of feedback but also enhanced my confidence in the writing process. I was less afraid of being judged and making mistakes. The sessions shifted from the repetitive introduction of myself awkwardly, to fostering a deep understanding of my own writing strategies. In discussions with peers, I found contrasting views. Some argued that visiting different tutors exposed tutees to different teaching styles and learning approaches. This contrast raised an important question: How does returning to the same tutor affect session productivity and satisfaction at the AUS Writing Center?
While some argue that working with different tutors exposes students to diverse perspectives, others, including myself, find that consistent pairings build trust and facilitate deeper engagement. Understanding this dynamic is not only relevant to improving student outcomes at AUS but can also contribute to broader discussions about effective tutoring practices in writing centers globally. This question becomes especially significant in the context of AUS’s student population, which is highly diverse with 84% of students being international (American University of Sharjah, n.d.), and many are non-native English speakers. As such, the Writing Center plays a key role in helping students from various linguistic and educational backgrounds navigate the challenges of academic writing in English. Therefore, this study aims to explore how consistent tutor-tutee pairings influence the productivity and satisfaction of writing center sessions at AUS. I hypothesize that returning to the same tutor fosters a more personalized and productive experience, leading to higher satisfaction levels and improved writing outcomes. This research is particularly useful in the context of AUS, where students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds often rely on the Writing Center to navigate the challenges of academic writing in English.
Literature Review
The relationship between tutor and tutee has been a subject of interest in writing center studies, particularly in understanding how this interaction shapes learning outcomes. Research on consistent tutor-tutee pairings highlights both benefits and complexities. Several studies point to the potential for increased productivity when students consistently work with the same tutor. Silver and VanLehn (2015) introduced the concept of “micro-adaptation,” in which tutors adjust their instructional strategies based on prior interactions with the same student. Their findings revealed that tutees who worked with the same tutor across sessions showed greater initial improvement during discussions on specific topics. However, this advantage diminished over time when working on new assignments, as tutors unfamiliar with the tutee eventually became just as effective as those with prior experience. These findings suggest that while familiarity between tutor and tutee can enhance early session productivity, its long-term impact on learning outcomes may be limited. In my research, I will explore whether this increase in productivity, in fact, decreases with new assignments, as suggested by the authors. It is possible, however, that consistent tutor-tutee pairings continue to offer benefits beyond early sessions, especially when tutors develop familiarity not only with a student’s writing style but also with their learning preferences, native language challenges, and recurring issues. Such deeper understanding may enable tutors to provide more personalized support even as assignment topics shift. Additionally, Silver and VanLehn’s study may be limited by focusing primarily on early-session productivity, potentially overlooking how familiarity could influence other important outcomes like confidence, motivation, or long-term writing development. My study aims to address these gaps by examining productivity and satisfaction across varied assignments and exploring the refined ways tutor consistency may affect learning over time.
While Silver and VanLehn focused on productivity, other researchers have explored how familiarity affects student engagement and communication, especially among multilingual students. For instance, Okudo and Anderson (2018) examined how consistent tutor-tutee pairings affect communication and comfort levels in tutoring sessions, particularly among Chinese students in U.S. universities. Their research found that when tutees repeatedly worked with the same tutor, they were more likely to open up, ask questions, and engage deeply with the material. This was especially true for Chinese ESL students, who often faced anxiety about their language skills and felt more at ease when paired with a familiar tutor. This openness can be especially valuable, as asking questions allows tutors and students to identify knowledge gaps and check each other’s understanding. According to Thompson and Mackiewicz (2014), such interactions help tutors, and occasionally students, facilitate the dialogue of writing center sessions, ultimately supporting students’ engagement and long-term development as writers. Interestingly, the benefits of tutor familiarity in this case go beyond just increased comfort, but also led to more specific and targeted feedback, as opposed to the general advice often given in single-session appointments. The authors report that students often encounter tutors who provide only general advice, which may not address specific writing needs, particularly on surface-level issues like grammar. This complements Silver and VanLehn’s findings by suggesting that familiarity improves not only efficiency but also depth of interaction. This insight supports my focus on how consistent tutor-tutee pairings impact productivity and satisfaction, including how familiarity might shape the feedback process to better meet the needs of multilingual students.
Further building on the theme of feedback, Madaio et al. (2017) investigated how tutors navigate the balance between maintaining politeness and delivering constructive feedback. They found that tutors who lacked rapport with their tutees often used more indirect instructions to avoid threatening the tutee’s “positive face,” that is, their desire to be respected and not embarrassed (p. 1). This often meant offering suggestions rather than corrections, phrasing feedback as questions, or avoiding direct criticism. Such approaches are generally less directive and may focus more on explanation than editing, though they are not always tailored to the tutee’s specific needs. While this strategy worked well with new tutees, enabling them to assess and solve more problems, it was less effective among familiar pairs, where direct feedback proved more beneficial. These findings align with Okudo and Anderson’s observation that familiarity allows tutors to shift towards more tailored guidance. In my research, I will inquire from tutors about their preferences for using either direct or indirect feedback in their sessions to understand how feedback strategies evolve with familiarity.
While research on rapport and feedback strategies exists in the context of writing centers, there is limited literature on the experience of multilingual writers visiting the writing center, especially in a Gulf-based context. Tiruchittampalam et al. (2018) addressed part of this gap by focusing on how one-on-one consultations at an English-medium university in the Gulf region impacted the writing skills of L1 Arabic students. Drawing on Vygotsky’s theory, they emphasized how learning occurs in stages through interaction with a more knowledgeable person. Initially, the learner relies on external input, which is gradually internalized. In this context, it is suggested that the one-on-one and staged nature of writing center sessions supports this type of learning (Nordlof, 2014, as cited in Tiruchittampalam et al., 2018), where knowledge is constructed gradually through interaction. Meeting the same tutor across multiple sessions may reinforce this process, as tutees can build on previous feedback, develop trust, and internalize small pieces of guidance over time. In contrast, working with a different tutor each time may disrupt this progression, requiring the tutee to repeatedly adjust to new communication styles and starting points, potentially slowing their ability to retain and apply feedback. This study is important to my research because, although the authors explored the development of Arabic speakers in the cultural context of the Gulf region, they do not address whether students consistently worked with the same tutor, which is a critical aspect of understanding the long-term impact of tutor-tutee relationships in writing center settings.
Overall, while studies have explored different themes in writing center research, such as learning outcomes, tutor-tutee rapport, and feedback strategies, none have addressed the intersection of these themes within a multicultural and multilingual context. The unique setting of the AUS Writing Center offers an opportunity to explore how consistent tutor-tutee pairings impact both productivity and satisfaction in a diverse student population. Thus, this study will fill a significant gap in the literature by examining how these interactions affect learning outcomes and the preferences of multilingual students in a culturally diverse environment.
Methodology
Participants
To explore the impact of consistent tutor-tutee pairings on productivity, I conducted interviews with two tutors and their respective regular tutees from the Writing Center at the American University of Sharjah (AUS). To protect the privacy of the participants, I have used alias names: Tutor 1 is referred to as Maryam Amin and her tutee as Essa Aziz; Tutor 2 as Amina Baz, and her tutee as Habiba Cham. These alias names are used consistently throughout the research. All four participants were interviewed separately on different days in person, with one tutee interviewed online. Semi-structured interviews were used for both tutors and the tutees, allowing flexibility for follow-up questions when needed (see Appendix A for the tutor interview questions and Appendix B for the tutee interview questions). Each interview lasted approximately 15–25 minutes. Both tutors had nearly two years of tutoring experience, making them well-acquainted with the tutoring process. Maryam considers Arabic her first language, while Amina considers herself an English and Turkish native bilingual and has working proficiency in Arabic. Both tutors completed their schooling in the American system. The tutees were both Sophomore engineering majors. Essa, having predominantly studied in Canada before completing high school in the UAE within the American system, finds himself equally fluent in Arabic and English. Habiba, while considering Arabic her first language, is also equally comfortable with English due to her educational background in both the British and American school systems. All four of the participants are multilingual and multicultural, proficient in Arabic and English.
Data Analysis
For data analysis, I voice-recorded all the interviews and transcribed them using the “TurboScribe” website. To identify key themes, I uploaded the transcriptions to the “Insight7” platform. I analyzed the tutors’ and tutees’ transcriptions separately, looking for recurring patterns and themes. Additionally, I created a table on Google Docs to organize these themes (see Appendix C), with specific quotes from the interviews included beside each theme for clarity. Moreover, to ensure thoroughness, I reviewed each transcription multiple times, manually adding any additional information or themes that may have been overlooked during the initial analysis. This process helped maintain the accuracy and depth of the findings.
Results and Discussion
Increased Productivity in Sessions: Understanding Needs & Expectations
A prominent theme that emerged from the interviews was the increase in efficiency in sessions when tutees worked consistently with the same tutor. Participants shared that this consistency eliminated the need for repeated explanations of assignments, saving time and allowing for more focused discussions on writing issues. H. Cham explained, “It saves time as she [her tutor] already knows what I am looking for, even if I don’t mention it” (personal communication, November 20, 2024). This familiarity meant that both the tutor and tutee could begin sessions with a clear understanding of what needed to be addressed without spending time revising background details. This contradicts the findings of Silver and VanLehn (2015), as productivity does not necessarily decrease with new tasks in consistent pairings; tutors, having a deeper understanding of their tutees’ working styles and expectations, irrespective of the tasks, can adapt seamlessly to different writing challenges. Moreover, E. Aziz compared working with the same tutor to having an ongoing conversation, stating, “It’s more like a follow-up when I go to the same tutor” (personal communication, November 21, 2024). This sense of continuity allowed him to build on progress from previous sessions rather than starting anew, which he found particularly helpful for longer assignments or recurring issues, aligning with the findings from Thonus (2001), who noted that tutees consistently working with the same tutor over multiple sessions tend to make more significant progress in their learning and skill development.
Furthermore, tutors also emphasized how familiarity with previous sessions made the sessions pass more easily and quickly. A. Baz shared her perspective: “After we catch up with each other for five to ten minutes, it takes us 15-20 minutes max to go over the tutee’s needs” (personal communication, November 19, 2024). She attributed this efficiency to her familiarity with the tutee’s strengths, weaknesses, and goals from past sessions, which allowed her to provide tailored support more quickly. The time saved was especially valuable in shorter sessions as it ensured that the focus remained on addressing the tutee’s concerns. Another significant benefit of regular pairings was the tutor’s ability to understand and adapt to the expectations of professors. M. Amin described how working with consistent tutees gave her insights into their professors’ preferences. She explained, “When I read the paper, I would know, ‘Oh, your professor is not going to like that.’ Knowing what this professor is like and continuously getting updates helped him [her tutee] improve his paper” (personal communication, November 12, 2024). This understanding allowed her to guide tutees more effectively, particularly when dealing with challenging or demanding professors who have specific needs. Both tutees agreed, emphasizing how the tutor’s understanding of their professor’s expectations saved them significant time and effort. This eliminated the need to explain these preferences to new tutors, ultimately enhancing the productivity of their sessions.
When asked if there were any challenges to working with new tutors, Habiba reported that when she had to explain her assignment to a new tutor, half the session would be spent providing context. She also mentioned feeling that the new tutors often misunderstood her concerns, making the progress less effective. “Sometimes, they don’t really get what I’m looking for,” she said, emphasizing the frustration of having to repeatedly clarify her needs. Essa echoed this sentiment, explaining that sessions with unfamiliar tutors felt slower and less productive because of the time required to build rapport. Therefore, the consistent pairing of tutors and tutees enhanced session productivity by building familiarity, improving communication, and allowing both parties to focus on meaningful progress without going over basic information repeatedly.
Tailored Feedback: Balancing Criticism & Directness
Another key takeaway from the interviews was the role of feedback in shaping the tutor-tutee interactions. Both tutors and tutees highlighted that working together regularly allowed tutors to better understand the personalities and preferences of their tutees, leading to more personalized feedback. M. Amin explained that regular sessions helped her adjust her feedback to suit the tutee’s needs. “Sometimes there are things you know would help them more than another,” she noted, highlighting how familiarity guided her approach (personal communication, November 12, 2024). On the other hand, A. Baz reflected on the challenges of working with new tutees, sharing that she was cautious about being too critical at the start: “I fear I might say something that scares them, and they never come back to the Writing Center,” (personal communication, November 19, 2024), she says, aligning with the findings of Madaio et al. (2017). However, with regular tutees, Amina felt more confident knowing their boundaries and understanding “when to push and when not to push.” This shows how consistent sessions help tutors understand when to challenge tutees and when to offer support, ensuring feedback is both effective and considerate.
In line with this, regular sessions also made tutees more comfortable with directive feedback. For instance, E. Aziz appreciated the straightforwardness, describing his tutor as someone who “is blunt when she needs to be and nice when she could be” (personal communication, November 21, 2024). He felt this balance made the feedback genuine and constructive, which suggests that the tutoring session consists of a balance between directive and nondirective forms of feedback. H. Cham added that when tutors are hesitant to point out issues, it can feel like they are making the tutee do all the work, which she found demotivating from the tutor’s side (personal communication, November 20, 2024). This mirrors the findings of Brown and Levinson (1987), who discovered that tutees who had familiar relationships with their tutors were more likely to receive direct feedback, as the comfort level between them reduced the fear of causing offense (as cited in Madaio et al., 2017). Similarly, Nordoff (2014) notes that tutors often shift toward more direct forms of feedback when they have established rapport with the tutee, viewing this as a more responsive and individualized form of feedback. Therefore, from the tutor’s perspective, the ability to tailor criticism was a significant aspect of their feedback strategy.
Moreover, Maryam shared that while her overall tutoring approach remained constant, her level of criticism depended on the tutee. “Some tutees want the rough criticism; they’re like, “Tell me what is wrong,” she said. At the same time, she understood that some tutees required a gentler approach. Similarly, Amina explained that avoiding being non-directive for a tutee who preferred it would feel “odd,” highlighting the importance of knowing the individual’s preferences. This personalized approach not only strengthened the tutor-tutee relationship but also made the sessions more productive by striking a balance between constructive feedback and encouragement. Such adaptability also reflects broader cultural considerations in tutoring. As Tan (2011) observed, a less directive style of tutoring was more challenging to apply in an Asian context, where a more direct, teacher-like approach better suited cultural expectations—a finding echoed by Okudo and Anderson (2018). This underscores the importance of cultural awareness in effective tutoring.
These subtleties are rarely apparent in single sessions, and they emerge only through regular tutor-tutee pairings, where sustained interactions let tutors attune to a student’s linguistic background, cultural expectations, and feedback comfort zone. By recognizing and responding to these finer cues, tutors can promote a learning environment that not only meets students’ specific needs but also heightens their motivation and willingness to engage.
Increased Comfort Level: Engagement and Guidance
Building on the importance of understanding individual preferences, tutors shared that new tutees tend to be more rigid and often hesitate when asking questions, creating a barrier to open communication. They observed that this hesitation can affect the flow of the session, making it more challenging to address the tutee’s needs. On the contrary, H. Cham stated that she would have no issue voicing her concerns, whether with a regular tutor or a new one, as it did not matter to her (personal communication, November 20, 2024). Similarly, E. Aziz expressed that he would freely admit when he was struggling, regardless of whether he was working with a new or regular tutor. However, he did admit that he would feel more comfortable voicing his struggles with English with someone from the same cultural background as his (personal communication, November 21, 2024). This implies that cultural similarity could play a significant role in enhancing comfort and openness during writing center sessions.
The discussion of comfort and openness naturally extends to how the relationship between tutors and tutees evolves over time. As familiarity develops, the need for constant guidance decreases, and the sessions become more engaging, as A. Baz shares that tutees are “aware of what they need, and they know what they want me to pinpoint, so it is like very quick, quick, quick” (personal communication, November 19, 2024). M. Amin explained that she could easily identify if a tutee had used AI-generated content after working with them regularly, as she became familiar with their writing style (personal communication, November 12, 2024). Further, Amina noted that with regular tutees, the barrier of initial hesitation is often broken early on, making the sessions more comfortable and productive. The tutees also expressed how the sessions were more fun with a tutor they regularly visited, which motivated them to visit the writing center often. Hence, the familiarity between the tutor and the tutee leads to more open communication, allowing the tutor to offer more efficient and focused guidance. This development of rapport supports deeper student engagement in the writing process, which is crucial since learning occurs not just in producing writing but through actively discovering and engaging with the writing process itself (Sullivan and Cleary, 2014).
Preference for Consistent Tutors Over Varied Perspectives
When asked if the tutees could benefit from seeing different tutors in any way, all four participants expressed a preference for working consistently with the same tutor. M. Amin, for instance, highlighted that writing is subjective and that constantly switching tutors could cause confusion for the tutee, potentially doing more harm than good. She shared a recent example where one of her regular tutees approached another tutor, who suggested a specific structure. However, when the tutee returned to Maryam, she recommended a different approach. The tutee then pointed out that he had already worked with another tutor on an alternative structure, which led to confusion (personal communication, November 12, 2024). Maryam clarified that she was not suggesting that the tutor was wrong but noted that such inconsistencies could confuse the tutee, making it harder for them to improve their writing abilities effectively. She went on to mention that, if time permits, a tutee could approach another tutor for an overview of the paper, but for the most part, consistency in tutoring is beneficial, which mirrored A. Baz’s opinion as well (personal communication, November 19, 2024). Similarly, E. Aziz shared strong feelings about his experience with new tutors, recalling, “I would rather not have wasted my 30 minutes.” He explained that he did not find the session helpful and felt that the feedback he received was not constructive, as it was mainly generalized praise (personal communication, November 21, 2024). Essa compared this to the more personalized feedback he typically received from his regular tutor. Moreover, both tutees agreed that the benefits of working with a new tutor never outweighed the benefit of consistency. While they acknowledged that a fresh perspective “might” occasionally be useful, they both agreed that the “fresh set of eyes” was the only potential advantage. This reflects a broader sentiment among the participants that familiarity with a tutor’s approach leads to more meaningful and effective sessions, as it allows for tailored feedback and a deeper understanding of the tutee’s needs.
Despite the benefits, both tutors and tutees face a challenge–the increased comfort during regular sessions sometimes leads to lengthy conversations, making it difficult for tutors to steer the focus back to writing. Further, Amina expressed that she worries that she might be imposing her own writing style on her tutees. However, when I asked her tutee about this, the tutee disagreed, explaining that she does not simply follow instructions but carefully considers her tutor’s suggestions (H. Cham, personal communication, November 20, 2024). This aligns with Nordoff’s (2014) finding that the interaction between student and tutor often resembles a give-and-take conversation, where both parties contribute to the learning progress.
Similarly, Eleftheriou (2019) observed that while tutees generally preferred tutors who appeared confident, knowledgeable, and authoritative, they also valued maintaining some degree of autonomy in guiding the direction of the session. These challenges, balancing authority with autonomy and managing prolonged conversations, did not seem to diminish the overall effectiveness of the sessions, as tutors expressed adapting their approaches to ensure writing concerns were addressed effectively and prioritized.
Conclusion
My study explored whether consistent tutor-tutee pairings impact session productivity and satisfaction, particularly within the multicultural and multilingual context of the American University of Sharjah (AUS). The findings indicate that tutors and tutees strongly prefer consistent pairings, as they enhance productivity, increase motivation, and promote a deeper understanding of individual needs. Over time, tutors became more attuned to their tutees’ expectations, and the increased comfort level contributes to a more effective and supportive learning environment. These results suggest that writing centers could leverage consistent pairings to encourage students to seek help more regularly, ultimately improving the quality of their writing and learning experiences. However, the study also identified a challenge: the difficulty in refocusing conversations on writing due to the comfort and familiarity that develop in regular sessions. Despite this, all participants agreed that the benefits of consistent pairings outweighed the drawbacks.
Implementations for Practice
To implement the findings, writing centers could develop a system that allows students to request or maintain long-term tutor pairings. This could be facilitated through an initial consultation or an online survey that collects basic preferences from tutees. In this survey, tutees could provide details about their academic background, including the curriculum they come from. Moreover, understanding the educational background the tutee is familiar with can offer valuable context for tutors. For example, knowing whether a tutee has been accustomed to writing in a more rigid, structured format or a more flexible, creative style can help the tutor better tailor their feedback and provide more effective guidance on transitioning to the university’s writing standards. Further, when tutees have the option to work with a tutor from the same academic background as theirs, it can provide a sense of comfort, and their needs can be better understood by the tutors.
To make the process more engaging for both tutors and tutees, writing centers could introduce a collaborative session log system. At the end of each session, tutors and tutees could spend a few minutes jointly filling out a digital or physical session summary. The summary could include key points discussed, aspects of writing addressed, progress made, and goals for the next session. Such a system would actively involve tutees in reflecting on their learning, making them more invested in their progress. Additionally, a feature like personalized reminders for the next session, based on the goals set, could help tutees stay focused and motivated. This approach not only enhances documentation but also strengthens the partnership between tutor and tutee, making the process more interactive and tutee-centered.
Limitations and Future Research
The study has several limitations. The restricted sample size reduces the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the reliance on interviews may have introduced bias, as the tone and phrasing of the questions could have influenced participants’ responses. While the findings address a gap in existing research by examining tutor-tutee interactions in a multilingual and multicultural university setting, a significant limitation was that the sample primarily consisted of students from British or American educational backgrounds, who were already comfortable with English and writing. Based on preliminary evidence and my personal experience, students from more diverse linguistic backgrounds, particularly those who do not consider English their first language, may face unique challenges in writing when transitioning to university. They may struggle with language barriers, academic expectations, and voicing concerns in writing sessions that are understood correctly. I hypothesize that for these students, repeated tutor-tutee pairings could be especially important, as ongoing interaction with the same tutor might promote greater understanding of their specific linguistic and cultural needs, leading to more personalized feedback and increased comfort in communication.
Conversely, working with different tutors each time could impede progress by requiring students to repeatedly explain their challenges. Future research should explore these dynamics by including tutors and tutees from a broader range of linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Additionally, it would be valuable to investigate whether consistent pairings with tutors from similar cultural or linguistic contexts could help address these challenges. For instance, during the interview, Essa shared that he would feel more comfortable expressing concerns to someone from the same cultural background, suggesting that shared experiences could enhance communication and support. Therefore, we can better understand how writing centers can create inclusive environments that cater to the needs of all students by studying these factors.
References
Banda, C. (2019). Aiming beyond the written, to the writer and writing: The writing consultation as a mentoring process for life-long writing. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus (SPiL Plus), 57, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.5842/57-0-818
Eleftheriou, M. (2019). Multilingual, Middle-Eastern students‘ varied responses to directive and non-directive strategies in peer tutoring. TESOL International Journal, 14(1), 62-78. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1244101.pdf
Madaio, M., Cassell, J., & Ogan, A. (2017). The impact of peer tutors’ use of indirect feedback and instructions. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 383-390. 52.pdhttps://repository.isls.org/bitstream/1/255/1/52.pdff
Nordlof, J. (2014). Vygotsky, scaffolding, and the role of theory in writing center work. Writing Center Journal, 34(1). https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/wcj/vol34/iss1/4/f
O’Sullivan, Í., & Cleary, L. (2014). Peer-tutoring in academic writing: The infectious nature of engagement. Journal of Academic Writing, 4(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v4i1.72
Okuda, T., & Anderson, T. (2018). Second language graduate students’ experiences at the writing center: A language socialization perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 391– 413. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44986996
Siler, S. A., & VanLehn, K. (2015). Investigating microadaptation in one-to-one human tutoring. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 344–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.907224
Tan, B. (2011). Innovating writing centers and online writing labs outside North America. In P. Robertson & R. Nunn (Eds.), The Asian EFL journal quarterly (pp. 309-417). Asian EFL Journal Press. https://www.asian-efljournal.com/PDF/June_2011.pdf
Thompson, I., & Mackiewicz, J. (2014). Questioning in writing center conferences. The Writing Center Journal, 33(2), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1767
Thonus, T. (2001). Triangulation in the writing center: Tutor, tutee, and instructor perceptions of the tutor’s role. The Writing Center Journal, 22(1), 59–82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43442136
Tiruchittampalam, S., Ross, A., Whitehouse, E., & Nicholson, T. (2018). Measuring the effectiveness of writing center consultations on L2 writers’ essay writing skills. Languages, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/languages3010004
Appendix
Please refer to pages 52 to 61 of the digital issue for all appendices.