Dr. Joseph Nefcy Cheatle, Emory University
As I prepared for a recent staff meeting at my writing center on GenAI, I needed to consider all of the ways that GenAI impacts, or could impact, the center. When I did that, and in talking with students at the meeting, I saw that GenAI was already everywhere in the center, and we were not prepared for it. Students at my institution are frequently using GenAI for their writing – some are using it as a complement, while others are using it to do the writing for them. Meanwhile, tutors are on the front line of GenAI as they work with students who use GenAI in their writing, navigating a complex situation where individual faculty members each have different policies on GenAI for their courses. This makes it challenging to have a blanket GenAI policy for the center, especially as advances to GenAI are still rapidly occurring. Tutors were also interested in learning about how GenAI could be effectively used in tutoring sessions.
A recent thread on the Consortium on Graduate Communication listserv about the use of writing center tutoring appointments by students was revealing. The initial post tracked a decline in appointments with the rise of GenAI, noting causation without correlation. Given the rate of responses and discussion, it is clear there is a trend of decreasing tutoring numbers across the field. Meanwhile, another post provided anecdotal evidence that there is a decline in the teaching of writing among instructors because students are often using GenAI to complete the work for them, which results in less usage of the writing center. Rather than teach writing, instructors are relying on tests and exams to assess student learning. In either case, GenAI is viewed as the main culprit for a changing landscape for writing centers that features declining usage rates and more student use of GenAI.
In her Introduction to the first of a double issue from TPR on AI, Genie Giaimo writes that “Generative AI rose like a sudden wave in late fall 2022.” Despite its recent appearance, one thing that is clear from my experience and from the attention devoted to it in two special issues of TPR, is that GenAI is here to stay and is now an inextricable part of our writing center environments. This issue, and the articles discussed in this introduction to the second TPR special issue on GenAI, are an attempt to respond to this new reality. Collectively, the authors of the articles in this second GenAI issue (9.2) recognize that GenAI is here to stay and we must recognize that, with such permanence, writing centers must confront this reality rather than wish it away. While responding to GenAI, the authors acknowledge writing centers must respond to different institutional contexts and local conditions. These articles echo what I believe are common experiences writing center administrators and tutors are going through at this particular moment in time, specifically focusing on tutor perception of GenAI, policy-making for GenAI, and how GenAI can be used as a tool by tutors. Together, these articles provide us insights into the tutor and administrative concerns as well as highlight the broad range of how writing centers are responding to GenAI.
The first work of this issue, “A Future for Writing Centers? Generative AI and What Students are Saying,” by Joe Essid and Cady Cummins provides a succinct overview of current conversations in the field regarding GenAI. In a survey of students at the University of Richmond, they found that 91% of students have used GenAI and that students have adopted/adapted to it more rapidly than faculty. Essid and Cummins contend that writing center administrators must take the lead in developing pedagogical methods for employing GenAI in order to get ahead of institutional administrators who may try to outsource our work. They go on to sound the alarm about GenAI, arguing that “It will be up to WCAs, tutors, consultants, students, faculty, staff, and other teaching stakeholders (rather than non-teaching senior administration and politicians) to shape how AI gets used to help, not replace or monitor us.”
Two works bring a tutor perspective to the conversation on AI, both highlighting the challenges and opportunities presented by this emergent technology. The first, “Emotional Nuance and Tension Present in Writing Center Tutors’ Perceptions of AI” by Isabelle Lundin, draws on peer tutor interviews from the Northeastern University Writing Center. She finds that much like writing is a vulnerable and emotional activity so, too, is writing with AI. She encourages us to approach using AI with emotional nuance. The second is “Tutors’ Perceptions on AI Tools and Translation at CAPA-UFPR, the First Brazilian Writing Center” by Thais Rodrigues Cons, Adriana Cristina Sambugaro de Mattos Brahim, Nylcéa Thereza de Siqueira Pedra, and Patricia Barreeto Mainardi Maeso. The context for this work is unique because one of the main tasks of the center is to translate articles from Portuguese into English or Spanish; therefore, much of their focus is on linguistic equity. Through a tutor questionnaire, Cons et al. found that tutors are concerned about how GenAI may affect the perception of authorship and intellectual property as works move from one language to another. While GenAI can be a complementary tool for tutors, it can also usurp creative and intellectual control of the text.
Meanwhile, three articles recognize the importance of creating policy for GenAI in writing centers. These works spotlight specific writing center policies to guide the use of GenAI by tutors as well as the general approach of the writing center more broadly to GenAI. In “Moving Past Policing: How Baylor University’s Writing Center is Responding to Tutor Concerns About AI Use in Student Writing,” Lauren Short discusses the process of making an “artificial intelligence policy” in the Baylor University Writing Center. Based on observations and conversations with tutors, she found that a GenAI policy can free tutors from the responsibility of reporting students who use GenAI in their writing and provided a basic model for how to approach discussions about plagiarism. A second article on policy-making, “Reclaiming the Writing Process: Tutoring for Survivance and Sovereignty in the Era of GenAI” by Teresa Gebers, Wendy Pias, Rhea Soifua, Kandi Klein Timothy, and Isaac K. Wang, grounds a response to GenAI to a specific place and writing center context. As an indigenous serving institution in Hawai’i, Gebers et al. acknowledge rhetorical sovereignty by positioning GenAI as a potential collaborator rather than as an authority. The last work on policy-making, “Writing Center Instruction for the Age of AI: Tutors Professional Development Workshop” by Alexandra Krasova and Mahmoud Othman, recounts the process of using a professional development workshop on GenAI to create policies regarding it at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Using a professional development workshop model allowed students to discuss their own use of AI and their experiences tutoring students using AI in developing their center’s AI policy.
Finally, Ava Cloghessy’s article “Exploring the Utility of AI-Assisted Session Notes,” recounts a process for using GenAI to generate session notes with accuracy and efficiency. As part of her process for creating session notes with GenAI, Cloghessy submitted transcripts of tutoring sessions to ChatGPT using prompt engineering strategies to train the GenAI to effectively produce draft session notes that the tutor could then refine. Cloghessy found that by using GenAI on session notes, she was able to spend more time with writers during a session, that session notes were more detailed than what she would have created on her own, and that they served to increase her own AI literacy. While the methods used by Cloghessy to use GenAI to enhance her session notes may not work for everyone, it does show how writing center professionals are using innovative methods to incorporate GenAI into their tutoring practices.
Generative AI is quickly changing and evolving, which will require us to be nimble, adaptable, and flexible as we enter a new era for writing centers. The conversations we have about GenAI today will be different from tomorrow’s conversations. Because of that, this issue is a snapshot of a moment in time. But it is an important snapshot. These works highlight the discomfort, frustration, and worry from tutors and administrators about GenAI use in writing centers and, more broadly, in the academy. They also provide concrete ways of addressing GenAI in writing centers, including through policy-making and as a tool for tutors to use. I encourage readers to take up the conversations raised by the authors in this issue and apply them to the context of their own writing center. And, more broadly, consider where we might be going as a field, continue to share that knowledge, and help prepare each other for a GenAI future in the writing center.
Special Thanks to AI Issue 9.1 and 9.2 Reviewers and Copyeditors
AI Issue Peer Reviewers:
-
Rebecca Babcock
-
Kat Bell
-
Matthew Bryan
-
Tom Deans
-
Harry Denny
-
Meaghan Dittrich
-
Joe Essid
-
Clint Gardner
-
Genie Giaimo
-
Christina Klimo
-
Elizabeth Kleinfeld
-
Dan Lawson
-
Luke Morgan
-
Roman Naghshi
-
Georganne Nordstrom
-
J.M. Paiz
-
Kim Pennesi
-
Jim Purdy
-
Kristina Reardon
-
Graham Stowe
AI Issue Copyeditors:
- Cat Baker
-
Alexandra Krasova
- Tammie Lovvorn
-
Ammar Mahmoud
- Craig Mannino
- Sherry Wynn Perdue
- Eric Camarillo
- Isabelle Ludin
- Andrew Yim
- TPR Editorial Team