U.S. Writing Center Theory and Practice:

Implications for Writing Centers in Japanese Universities

Mayumi Fujioka

In Japan, writing centers affiliated with universities have been established over the past

few years and have started serving as a place to improve students' English writing. Those

who are interested in writing centers, either administrators or instructors, have been trying

to gather information about geographically isolated writing centers (e.g., Johnston, Cornwell,

& Yoshida, 2010). In fact, one result of those unifying efforts resulted in the establishment of

the Japan Writing Center Symposium (Nihon Writing Center Kenkyuukai) in 2008, which

became the Writing Centers Association of Japan (WCAJ) in 2011. In 2009 there were at

least 11 writing centers in Japan (Johnston, 2009). Despite its current small number, the

sheer number of writing centers in Japanese universities is expected to increase. However,

under their starting period, there are many issues to be considered toward the sound and

productive operation of writing centers in Japan. The purpose of this paper is to review the

theory and practice of university writing centers in the United States, which have a long

history with a substantial body of literature on theory, research, and practice, in the hope of

illuminating some of the key issues to be considered for successful implementation of writing

centers in Japan.

The paper consists of three main sections: U.S. writing centers, second language (L2)

writing center studies, and writing centers in Japan, with several subsections under each. The

discussion in the first two sections concerns U.S. writing center theory and practice, based on

the review of the relevant literature in the field supplemented by a report of my experience

visiting two U.S. writing centers during my overseas research leave from August 2010 to

August 2011. The last section reports on the current situation of writing centers in Japan and

addresses the issues to be considered for future implementation of writing centers.

— 205 —

ft* • 1-111fiffft —CV

U.S. Writing Centers

History and Overview

Although there are differences in the administration and operation of U.S. universities,

the central practice of U.S. writing centers is that students, either undergraduate or graduate,

bring a piece of writing they produce for their university courses and in some cases for their

theses and dissertations to the university writing center and receive individualized assistance

on their writing from tutors. Meetings with tutors are usually appointment based with some

cases of walk-ins depending on their availability. It is totally up to students how often they

want to visit the writing center and receive help; some only come once for a small portion of

their writing and never come back. Others frequently or regularly utilize writing center

assistance on different portions of the same piece of writing or on entirely different papers. In

some cases, these students meet with the same tutor many times. The body of students

which writing centers serve is mainly first language (L1) English students. However, second

language (L2) English writers who seek help at writing centers in U.S. universities are

increasing, and the issue of L2 writing center studies will be discussed in a separate section in

this paper.

According to Carter-Tod (1995), the oldest known university writing center in the U.S.

was at the University of Iowa, called a writing lab at that time, which was established before

1935. Writing centers or labs in the U.S. then increased in the 1950s and expanded in the

1970s (Carino, 2002), and they can now be found in most major universities in the U.S.

(Williams, 2005). Furthermore, today there is an enormous body of literature on writing

center research and practice, with two major dedicated journals in the field: Writing Center

Journal and Writing Lab Newsletter. There are also numerous articles published in major U.S.

research journals.

Types of U.S. Writing Centers

Regarding writing centers' relationships with universities, Carter-Tod (1995) identifies

three main types of affiliation: (1) ones directly under the university English department; (2)

ones with no affiliations with any department in the university, and (3) ones connected with

other learning centers in the university (e.g., math learning center). The first type of writing

centers, those which are connected with the English Department of the university, were

established based on the fact that the English Department is usually responsible for

undergraduate writing instruction, offering freshman English composition courses. As a result,

— 206 —

Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan

those freshmen who take required English courses often visit the writing center to seek

assistance on their writing for the course. In fact, Carino (2002) points out that the group of

students who need writing center assistance most is the "struggling freshman" (p. 103), who

encounters difficulty adapting to written academic discourse and rhetoric required at the

college-level.

The second type of writing centers with no affiliations with any department in the

university can be seen in the example of Writing Tutorial Services (WTS) at Indiana

University, from which I graduated. Having the director who supervises the overall tutorial

services, the Indiana University WTS program offers services to all kinds of students,

undergraduates and graduates with both Ll and L2 English backgrounds. For example, in

the academic year 2009-2010, over 75,000 tutorials with 250 to 300 sessions every week were

offered at Indiana University's main campus, which has a total student enrollment of

approximately 35,000 (J. Vogt, personal communication, October 11, 2010).

Finally, an example of the third type of writing centers, the ones affiliated with

university learning centers, is offered by Idaho State University, where I conducted writing

center research during my overseas research leave. The Idaho State University Writing

Center is part of the Student Success Center, which is a university-wide academic support

center. Other than the Writing Center, this academic support center offers tutorial assistance

programs to students in such areas as math, content areas, and English as a Second Language

(ESL). In the academic year 2008-2009, with a population of approximately 12,000 students on

the main campus, the Idaho State University Writing Center offered a total of about 1,600

hours of tutoring (Le Corbeiller, 2010).

Writing Center Goals and Instructional Perspectives

As I mentioned earlier, writing centers in U.S. universities started in the 1930s and

expanded from the 1950s to the 1970s. According to Carino (2002), the main goal of those

early day writing centers was to help Ll English writers who had problems with basic areas

of writing, including grammar and punctuation and thus to assist in preparing them for

university education by teaching them standard English. This focus on remediation was

replaced by a larger focus to help students develop as writers with appropriate writing

strategies. According to North (1984), new writing centers after the 1970s represent two

robust instructional perspectives, which include process-oriented and student-centered

approaches. The process-oriented approach, which is now widely practiced in both Ll and L2

— 207 —

R* • 1-111ffilk

writing instruction, views writing as a process from generating ideas and drafting to final

editing with an emphasis on multiple revisions (see Casanave, 2004 for the history and details

of process writing approaches). This approach thus shifts the instructional focus away from

the mere corrections of the product. The student-centered approach emphasizes writers'

development in learning effective strategies they can transfer to various writing contexts.

North (1984) succinctly expresses the essence of those two instructional principles as follows:

in a writing center the object is to make sure that writers, and not necessarily

their texts, are what get changed by instruction. In axiom form it goes like this:

Our job is to produce better writers, not better writing. (p. 438)

North's notion of "better writers, not better writing" is in fact often cited in Ll writing center

literature, and furthermore it is "almost unanimously agreed upon by the most writing center

administrators" (Carter-Tod, 1995, p. 37).

Another major operational principle governing writing center theory and practice is

collaborative learning, the root of which traces to Bruffee (1984) in that learning can be

facilitated through interaction between peers who share similar experiences and backgrounds.

This emphasis on learning between peers makes one common model of writing centers, that

is, using students as tutors (Williams, 2005). This collaborative learning between peers, along

with the two instructional perspectives of process-orientation and emphasis on student

learning has created a distinctive instructional approach at writing centers. Under the

collaborative learning principle, tutors are generally expected to adopt a friendly peer role

rather than an authoritative teacher role. Moreover, tutors are usually encouraged to take a

nondirective approach, which means asking students questions to help them find answers to

problems in their writing rather than telling students how they should change specific words

and sentences (Carino, 2002; Powers, 1993). These instructional principles and approaches are

the basis for writing center tutoring practice with Ll English writers.

Tutor Population and Training

As discussed in the previous section, one common model of U.S. writing centers is using

students as tutors. Those student tutors are called peer tutors, who are both undergraduates

and graduate students at the universities with which writing centers are affiliated. According

to Carter-Tod (1995), there is another group of tutors called professional tutors, who are

usually not students but those with advanced education or degrees in writing theory and

instruction. Although there are differences in tutor populations at different writing centers,

— 208 —

Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan

peer tutors seem to be more common than instructional tutors. At Idaho State University, for

example, among 15 tutors in the academic year 2010-2011, 12 were peer tutors who were

undergraduate and graduate students mostly from the English Department. Three were

what they call "instructional tutors" who were faculty members with masters' degrees

teaching writing. At Indiana University, however, in the Fall Semester of 2010, all the 36

tutors were either undergraduate or graduate students from various disciplines at the

university, and there were no professional tutors.

The instructional principles of writing centers discussed earlier, which emphasize the

process rather than the product and collaborative learning through questions and answers,

are reflected overfly in the written guidelines for tutors at both Indiana University and Idaho

State University. Despite the common instructional perspectives, the two universities slightly

differ in their peer tutor training programs. At Indiana University, with its large student

population, potential undergraduate tutors are interviewed, and those who are selected are

required to take a course on writing theory and practice in the spring semester. Furthermore,

those who do well in the course are allowed to start working as a tutor in the following fall

semester. Graduate tutors, who are selected based on interviews, are not required to take a

course, but they need to participate in four-hour training sessions in every semester as their

undergraduate counterparts do.

At Idaho State University, no tutor training courses are offered, but three tutor training

sessions in each semester are offered. In the training sessions in the 2010-2011 academic year,

all of which I attended, tutors were asked to read articles on tutoring practices, comment on

portions of sample student writings, and exchange opinions and contribute to the discussion.

Furthermore, one full training session in each semester was devoted to citation practices, the

in-text citations and reference styles according to the APA Manual, in particular. This training

activity reflected the need for tutors to familiarize themselves with the APA style, with which

their tutees (student writers) in various disciplines frequently request assistance.

Beyond the common instructional principles, the content in students' writings in their

specific disciplines matters in writing tutoring sessions. In order to improve the quality of

tutorial assistance, the Indiana University WTS program offers matching of students (tutees)

and tutors in the same or close areas of discipline, such as engineering, law, and physics.

However, due to the time conflicts between the tutee and the tutor for potential appointments,

this matching is not always possible (J. Vogt, personal communication, October. 11, 2010). At

Idaho State University, no such matching efforts between tutees and tutors are executed due

— 209 —

• 1-111ffilk

to the relatively small population size of tutors and their predominant disciplinary affiliation

with the English Department However, minimal efforts of matching are made in such a case

when a doctoral student working on a dissertation is matched with a doctoral student tutor,

not an undergraduate tutor.

In summary, despite some differences in student and tutor populations and tutor

training at different universities, writing centers in the U.S. operate on major principles of

process-oriented and student-centered approaches that are realized through collaborative

learning between peers. These operational principles, however, are based on the perspective

of assisting Ll English writers (native speakers of English who were educated in the U.S),

and thus there are issues and concerns as to whether L2 English writers who visit writing

centers should be assisted in the same way as Ll English writers. The next section reports

studies that address L2 students in U.S. writing centers. The relevant studies are introduced

under two major categories: theories on appropriate writing center instructional strategies for

L2 English writers and empirical studies that document what occurs in writing center

tutoring sessions with L2 students.

L2 Writing Center Studies

Appropriate Tutoring Strategies with L2 English Writers

In the early 1990s, writing centers in U.S. universities started facing an emerging

population of L2 English writers with various linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The

encounter with L2 English writers, who are in many ways different from Ll English writers,

prompted many scholars' discussions and suggestions for appropriate tutoring strategies for

L2 English writers (e.g., Kennedy, 1993; Harris & Silva, 1993; Powers, 1993; Severino, 1993;

Thonus, 1993). Harris and Silva (1993), for example, noted L2 English writers' unfamiliarity

with and confusion over collaborative peer tutoring styles at U.S. writing centers when those

L2 students came from cultural and educational backgrounds with expectations of

authoritative teacher roles. Thus, Harris and Silva suggested the need for writing center

tutors to assume the role of "tellers" (1993, p. 533) to some extent. Similarly, Powers (1993)

claimed that what she called the "Socratic" (p. 40) approach in tutoring through questions

and answers, which seemed to work well with Ll English writers, was not effective with L2

English writers. Thus, she suggested a more directive and more didactic approach to L2

writers by tutors being cultural informants in that they specifically show L2 writers what

expected U.S. academic discourse should look like.

— 210 —

Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan

Powers's (1993) call for a more directive tutoring approach to L2 English writers

stimulated many scholars' subsequent discussion on effective tutoring with L2 writers. The

directive tutoring approach included explicit grammar and language instruction, which was

discouraged for Ll English writers. Blau and Hall (2002) supported the directive approach

with L2 writers, but they emphasized the balancing of global (the meaning) and local (e.g.,

grammar, word-choice, and punctuation) issues in L2 tutoring practice. Disagreeing with the

directive approach, Cogie, Strain, and Lorinskas (1999) promoted the idea of teaching L2

English writers self-editing strategies in tutoring sessions in order to help them function

independently as writers. Myers (2003), on the other hand, opposed to the idea of teaching

self-editing strategies, endorsing explicit language instruction for L2 English writers by

claiming that the teaching of grammar was part of a tutor's job as cultural informant.

The discussion on effective tutoring practice with L2 English writers has continued to

the present date, and the recent discussion includes theories from wider disciplines including

Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Cogie (2006), for example, connects writing center

research and SLA theories by addressing the value of L2 writers' active participation in

tutoring sessions as a way to facilitate their second language acquisition processes. Bell and

Youmans (2006) bring the Politeness Theory discussed in sociolinguistics into writing center

discourse with L2 English writers. Pointing out L2 English writers' unfamiliarity with

expected politeness discourse strategies from praise to criticism employed by Ll English

tutors, Bell and Youmans suggest making this cultural practice of politeness more visible to

L2 English writers, as well as raising Ll tutors' awareness of their linguistic cultural politeness

strategies. Williams (2002) also explores insights from SLA research in L2 writing center

studies, and Williams and Severino (2004) further discuss the potentials of future L2 writing

center studies with a wider variety of disciplines including psychology, education, and

linguistics.

L2 Writing Center Empirical Studies

L2 writing center studies have also been evolving with the emergence of empirical

research, that is, documentation of what actually happens in writing center tutoring sessions

with L2 English writers. Among those empirical studies, those conducted by Thonus (1999a,b,

2002, 2004) have greatly contributed to the field by illuminating salient discourse features in

interactions between tutors and tutees. Some of those features include tutor-dominant

discourse patterns with both Ll and L2 tutees (Thonus, 1999a, 2004), politeness discourse

—211 —

ft* • 1-111fifflk

strategies employed by tutors (Thonus, 1999b), and components of successful tutorial practice

perceived by tutors and tutees (Thonus, 2002). Furthermore, Thonus (2001) investigated the

perceptions of the tutors' role by tutors, tutees, and course instructors and found little

consensus among those three parties. As one of the implications from her study, Thonus

(2001) emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence to discuss tutoring practice, not

through anecdotal evidence or prescriptive views of how tutorial practice should be. The

emphasis on empirical evidence through descriptions of tutor-tutee interactions is also carried

over in subsequent studies of writing center discourse including a tutee's advising-resisting

by Waring (2005) from a Conversation Analysis (CA) perspective, and a study by Williams

(2005) on an identification of fixed yet negotiated roles between tutors and tutees toward

tutor dominance and authority.

L2 writing center empirical studies have also started documenting writing center

practice other than tutor-tutee interactions. Williams (2004), for example, investigated the

relationship between tutoring talk and tutees' post-tutoring revisions on their drafts and found

that the focus of the revision was usually motivated by the focus of the discussion during the

tutoring sessions. Weigle and Nelson (2004) added to the literature by investigating novice

tutors' development and their negotiated roles with their tutees in the context of tutoring as

part of a graduate L2 writing theory and practice course required for the tutors. More

recently, Nakamaru's (2010) study focusing on lexical issues of L2 writing tutoring has

expanded the scope of the field which tended to be dominated by grammar issues.

In addition to the increasing number of studies documenting L2 writing center practice,

the field has also started recognizing the issues of diversity among L2 English writers who

seek writing center help. The prevalent notion of L2 English writers is those students who

have completed high school and/or undergraduate university education in their home

countries and have received formal English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education back

home. Another group of L2 English writers who have been receiving increasing attention is

the so called Generation 1.5 students, who came to the U.S. at a relatively young age, have

developed good listening and speaking skills in English, but have difficulty with advanced

academic writing skills. Several authors have noted the issues of those Generation 1.5 students

in writing center tutoring (Leki, 2009; Ritter & Sandvik, 2009; Thonus, 2003). The

aforementioned study by Nakamaru (2010) pays particular attention to the issue of

differences between Generation 1.5 writers, whom she calls "US-educated multilingual

writers" (p. 96) and traditional English as a Second Language (ESL) writers in her

— 212 —

Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan

investigation of lexical aspects of L2 writing center tutoring.

As shown in the section above, L2 writing center studies have been evolving in the

theoretical discussion on appropriate tutoring strategies with L2 writers and empirical studies

that document tutoring practice with L2 students and their writing issues. However, one

underexplored area of research about U.S. writing centers is assessment. Thonus (2003)

comments that writing center assessment is rarely connected with the assessment of student

writing in terms of change after the writing center tutoring session. Furthermore, Williams

(2004) claims that the writing center community even resists assessment of student writing

after the tutoring; they place more emphasis on the writing center conversation than the

outcomes of the tutoring. Based on the issues and questions that have arisen from U.S. writing

center studies with L2 English writers, the next section focuses on writing centers in Japan

with their current situation and issues to be addressed in future research and practice.

Writing Centers in Japan

Overview

Compared with U.S. writing centers that have been in existence for about 80 years,

writing centers in Japan have less than 10 years of history. According to Johnston, Cornwell,

and Yoshida (2010), in 2004 Waseda University established a writing center with its start of

the School of International Liberal Studies. In the same year, Osaka Jogakuin College

developed a once a week service of the writing clinic into a writing center with more

extended (six days a week) assistance. Since then the number of Japanese universities and

colleges which have started writing centers has increased to 11 in Japan as of 2009 (Johnston,

2009). Although little is known about the details of each of those writing centers, Johnston et

al. (2010) and Yoshida, Johnston, and Cornwell (2010), both of which are involved with the

same research project, provide an overview of writing centers in Japan in their beginning

period. In order to better understand the experience and the needs of the students utilizing

writing centers, Johnston, Cornwell, and Yoshida visited many domestic and overseas writing

centers from 2007 to 2009 and filed reports in the two studies mentioned above. The writing

centers they visited included four in Japan, three in the U.S., one Japanese branch of a U.S.

university in Japan, three in Korea and one in Singapore. The following discussion focuses on

the Japanese writing centers Johnston et al. studied in addition to some of the writing centers

which were launched after their study.

According to Johnston et al. (2010) and Yoshida et al. (2010), there is no one model

— 213 —

ft* • 1-111fifflk

among writing centers in Japan and each writing center offers assistance that matches the

needs of its students. Waseda University, for example, follows a peer tutoring model in which

trained Japanese graduate students and international students serve as peer tutors and assist

students from all the departments with English writing including term papers and theses.

According to the website of the Waseda University Writing Center ( "Writing Center

summary," 2011), they offer English-Japanese bilingual writing tutorials where students have

a choice to receive tutors' assistance in either English or Japanese. In addition, their writing

center also offers assistance in Japanese writing to both native-Japanese-speaking students

and international students. Osaka Jogakuin College, on the other hand, offers individual

writing tutoring conducted only in English by instructor tutors who are all native-English-

speaking full-time or part-time teachers at the college. They help students with various kinds

of course-related English writing such as summaries, essays, and papers. In 2008 the

University of Tokyo (Komaba Campus) started one-to-one writing consultations for students

enrolled in Active Learning of English for Science Students (ALESS) who seek help with

their writing assignments (see "ALESS," 2011 for more details). Other writing centers in

Japan studied by Johnston et al. include Sophia University, which offers a writing center

similar to the one in the U.S., and Kanda Gaigo Gakuin, the details of which were not reported.

For English writing assistance, Hays (2010) and Hays and Narita (2011) report a

program equivalent to a writing center, which they call the Writing Lounge at Tokyo

International University. The Writing Lounge, which started in 2008, follows a peer tutoring

model in which qualified students serve as peer tutors and help undergraduate students with

their English writing.

Some of the university writing centers in Japan which were established after the study

by Johnston et al. (2010) and Yoshida et al. (2010) specialize in helping students with

advanced academic writing skills in English. For example, Seisaku Kenkyu Daigakuin

Daigaku (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies or GRIPS) established an academic

writing center through which writing workshops and individual consultations are offered.

Their writing workshops focus on research writing skills including formulating research

questions, organizing ideas, incorporating source materials into writing, and using academic

writing conventions properly. Consequently, individual writing tutoring sessions also serve as

a place to help students with organization and logical thinking in their academic papers ( "The

Academic Writing Center at GRIPS," 2011). Similarly, Nagoya University established the

Meidai Academic Writing Unit in 2010 by setting a goal of promoting students' academic

— 214 —

Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan

publications. Under the Academic Writing Unit, courses are offered where students learn

logical thinking and how to write specific sections of an academic paper such as an abstract,

introduction, and conclusion. They also offer one-to-one basis writing tutorials on academic

papers or dissertations where students learn how to formulate thesis statements and build

their logical arguments. Those writing tutorials are offered by professors who are specialized

in logical thinking skills and academic writing in English, French, German, and Chinese ( "Mei-

writing site," 2011).

Except for Waseda University and Nagoya University, all the writing center programs

introduced so far are mainly concerned with providing assistance for Japanese students'

English writing. However, there are universities that have writing centers to assist Japanese

students with Japanese writing. For example, Kanazawa Kogyo University offers

individualized assistance for various kinds of Japanese writing, including editing for students'

essays and papers for course assignments and purpose statements and Curriculum Vitas

(CVs) for job applications (Yoshida et al., 2010). Similarly, Tsuda College, which advocates

producing independent writers through writing center tutoring, offers consultation for

Japanese writing for both class assignments and job applications although they do not offer

editorial services (Yoshida et al., 2010).

To conclude the writing centers in Japan they studied, Yoshida et al. (2010) emphasize

that there is a common educational principle among them despite the differences in the target

student population and the kinds of assistance they provide. The common principle is the

view of writing centers as a place to help students become independent writers and also

develop their ideas through writing. This principle seems to coincide with the agreed upon

principle of U.S. writing centers, that is, the idea of better writers, not better products based

on North (1984) as introduced earlier. While the basic educational principle of U.S. writing

centers may be easily introduced to writing centers in Japan, there seem to be many issues

to be considered for the sound and effective implementation of writing centers and student

writing development. Among those issues, the next section focuses on two major issues:

collaborative tutoring practice and process approach to writing. These two issues are related

to the fundamental educational principles of U.S. writing centers discussed in an earlier

section of this study. The following discussion addresses how those two educational

perspectives from U.S. writing centers can be effectively practiced in writing centers in Japan.

— 215 —

• 1-111ffilk

Collaborative Learning with Peer Tutors

As discussed earlier, there has been a great deal of discussion on appropriate tutoring

strategies with L2 English writers in U.S. writing centers. Some claim the ineffectiveness of

the collaborative tutoring practice, in which peer tutors are discouraged from telling answers

and solutions to the questions and problems student writers have with their writing, and

attribute the problem to the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of L2 writers. More

specifically, some L2 writers may not be familiar with the collaborative learning environment

with peers due to their cultural backgrounds where teachers are the authority providing

them with answers and solutions (Harris & Silva, 1993). In addition, more intervention is

necessary for tutoring L2 English writers than Ll writers because they are not familiar with

expected U.S. academic discourse (Powers, 1993). Thus, both Harris and Silva and Powers

suggest that writing center tutors assume more teacher roles with L2 English students and

take a more directive approach in telling them how they should change their writing.

The problems with the collaborative tutoring practice with L2 English students have

been pointed out by some authors in the context of writing centers in Japan and possible

solutions have been suggested. Hays (2010), for example, characterizes Japanese university

education as teacher-centered, and consequently he assumes that Japanese peer tutors are

playing the role of tellers instead of collaborators due to their cultural backgrounds. Despite

the Japanese cultural and educational background, Hays also claims that tutors should try to

minimize the telling part of their job only when it is appropriate. As Powers (1993) advocates

a more directive approach with L2 English students in the U.S., Yasuda (2006) suggests a

directive and corrective approach as an alternate way of writing center tutoring in Japan. In

order to make the directive approach effective, Yasuda emphasizes that explanation should

be added when tutors change students' writing for example, the removal of a sentence should

be accompanied by explanations including the irrelevance to the topic sentence or

redundancy.

While concurring that a more directive approach may be appropriate for Japanese

students, the collaborative learning approach as a source of confusion for Japanese students

might need to be viewed critically. Despite Hays's (2010) characterization of Japanese

university education as teacher-centered, Japanese students have been increasingly exposed

to group work including peer response activities in English writing classes and group projects

and presentations in content-area courses. Thus, Japanese students may not resist the idea of

learning from peers, and collaborative writing center practice may work effectively depending

— 216 —

Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan

on the students' prior experience working with peers. More importantly, writing center

practice should be reviewed and improved based on the responses of students who utilize

writing center assistance. To obtain student responses and describe writing center tutoring,

empirical writing center studies need to be conducted in the Japanese context.

Although there has been little empirical research done on writing center tutoring

practice in Japan so far, there are some studies which show positive responses from writing

center users. Based on the questionnaire results of students who utilized the writing center

(the Writing Lounge) at Tokyo International University, Hays (2010) reported that students

on average responded positively to their experience in the writing tutoring. Furthermore,

those students were found to be satisfied with the friendly attitude of the peer tutors and the

kinds of help they received from the tutors. Hays and Narita (2011) further investigated the

effectiveness of the Writing Lounge by conducting a case study of one Japanese student

struggling with a five-paragraph English essay as a course assignment and reported her L2

writing development and change in attitude as she utilized the Writing Lounge assistance. In

the same study, Hays and Narita also reported excerpts of tutor and tutee comments

regarding their tutoring experiences. Their comments reveal positive learning experiences

both as a tutor and a tutee, as well as the challenging aspects of tutoring. Some of the

difficulties peer tutors encountered include the failure to understand students' perceived areas

of problems in their writing and self-doubts about their effectiveness as a tutor. Tutees also

expressed concerns such as difficulty explaining in English their specific problems with

writing, and the sense of embarrassment of being helped with their writing. Those comments

from both tutors and tutees are valuable resources for the improved practice of writing

center tutoring, and more empirical studies with tutor and tutee responses through

questionnaires, interviews, and observations need to be conducted.

Process Approach to Writing

Besides the collaborative learning approach, another salient issue of bringing U.S.

writing center principles into the Japanese context is the process-centered approach.

According to Kobayashi and Rinnert (2002, as cited in Yasuda, 2006), Japanese students lack

academic writing training both in Ll and L2 up until the point when they enter universities.

The lack of academic literacy training means not only academic writing conventions including

thesis statements or topic sentences but also critical thinking skills and finding outside sources

and incorporating the information from the sources into their writing. Besides these

— 217 —

• 1-111ffilk

components for academic writing skills, Japanese students probably do not hold the view of

writing as a process and that they lack experience engaging in the practice of a writing

process from generating ideas, drafting, and final editing with multiple revisions in between.

Consequently, Japanese students may hold the view that the first draft could and should be

the final draft or that a good piece of writing consists of error-free sentences and thus they

should be only concerned with grammatical correctness.

This view of writing as a product and as a collection of error-free sentences can make a

significant impact on the attitude of students when they utilize writing centers. They may be

frustrated when their main concern is to get grammatical mistakes corrected while their

tutors address such issues as clarity of ideas or organization, as briefly reported by Hays

(2010). In order for students to get optimal benefits from writing center tutoring, it is

necessary to help them develop the view of writing as a process and engage in the process

approach outside writing center tutoring sessions. The process-oriented practice of writing

should be encouraged and exercised in content-area courses as well as in English writing

courses.

The process-oriented approach could be realized without a great deal of difficulty in

English writing classes. Students can learn to modify their ideas and earlier drafts as they

receive feedback from the teacher and their peers in such areas as the clarity of ideas,

organization, and audience awareness (see Liu & Hansen, 2002 for resources for an effective

practice of peer response activities on L2 writing). If students have a positive experience with

the process-approach of writing in their regular English writing classes, it is easier for them

to transfer this to their experience in writing center tutoring sessions.

In addition to promoting the process approach of writing in English writing classes, it is

beneficial to students if the process approach is incorporated into their disciplinary content-

area courses conducted in Japanese. Japanese university students engage in many writing

assignments including research papers in their disciplinary courses and theses. Despite the

fact that they write those academic papers in their native language, their writing

demonstrates many problems such as clarity of ideas. Moreover, according to Sadoshima

(2011), one of the serious problems with Japanese students' academic writing in Japanese is a

lack of proper citations, due to the lack of Ll academic writing training mentioned earlier.

Thus, Japanese students need to be taught academic writing conventions in their Li, and as

part of their Ll academic literacy training the process approach should be incorporated. If

students understand the concept of the process approach and develop the necessary writing

— 218 —

Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan

skills in 1,1, they will transfer this experience more easily to their L2 English writing and

consequently their writing center sessions may become more meaningful.

However, promoting the teaching of writing and the process approach in disciplinary

courses is not an easy task. In this regard, Yasuda (2006) emphasizes the role of writing

centers in facilitating a campus-wide program in raising the faculty's awareness of the

importance of writing and providing them with practical ideas to help students develop their

academic writing skills. Based on the idea of a partnership between writing centers and

Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) in U.S. universities through which writing centers

offer workshops for faculty members to learn how to create and grade writing assignments

effectively, Yasuda suggests that writing centers in Japanese universities take a central role

of developing a campus-wide writing environment so that all the faculty members take

responsibility for helping students develop academic writing skills through course

assignments.

In addition to the faculty's involvement in a campus-wide writing program, writing

centers can provide invited lectures and workshops by guest speakers such as journalists or

novelists in order to raise students' awareness of writing as a form of communication and

writing as a process. In Japan, Tsuda College has been active in offering those invited

workshops about Japanese writing through their writing center, and their program could

provide a good example of a writing center's role in promoting a campus-wide writing

program (see "Tsuda Writing Center," 2011 for more details).

In summary, the educational perspectives of collaborative learning with peers and the

process approach to writing, on which U.S. writing centers operate, can be smoothly

transferred to the context of writing centers in Japan, if students have enough experience

learning from peers and engaging in the process approach of writing outside writing center

tutoring sessions. In order to provide students with academic writing experience, not only

English writing courses but disciplinary courses need to offer opportunities for students to

engage in learning necessary academic writing skills including expected structures of writing

and the process of writing. This means that promoting students' academic writing skills is a

mission in which all the faculty members, both those teaching English writing and those

teaching disciplinary courses in Japanese, need to be involved. For that mission, writing

centers should take responsibility in leading and guiding the campus-wide writing program.

— 219 —

• I1-111,!filkil.--./

Conclusion

Writing centers in U.S. universities, with their many years of history, have evolved from

a place of remedial education to a place to promote students' development as writers. The

idea of the writing center as a place for promoting students' learning through writing applies

to the basic concept of writing centers in Japan. However, with their short history writing

centers in Japan have many issues to be considered for their successful implementation. As

key issues for effective writing center practice, collaborative learning with peers and the

process approach to writing were discussed. Those educational perspectives govern U.S.

writing center practice as well, yet writing centers in Japan may need to adjust and modify

those educational principles based on students' cultural and educational backgrounds and

their needs to utilize writing centers. At the same time, Japanese university education needs

to change in such a way as to make students' learning experience match that in the writing

centers. Moreover, writing centers are expected to serve as a liaison to create a campus-wide

learning environment for students' learning through writing. Although writing centers in

Japan are still in their starting period, it is crucial for administrators and faculty members to

have a critical view of what to learn from U.S. writing center theory and practice and how to

apply the knowledge gained from U.S. writing center studies to the development of writing

centers in Japan.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Charles Clark and Professor David Dalsky for their

valuable comments and suggestions on the earlier versions of this manuscript and my two

anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments and constructive feedback.

— 220 —

Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan

References

ALESS (Active Learning of English for Science Students), the University of Tokyo.

(2011). Retrieved from http://aless.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/?page_id=190

Bell, D., & Youmans, M. (2006). Politeness and praise: Rhetorical issues in ESL (L2)

writing center conferences. Writing Center Journal, 26, 31-47.

Blau, S., & Hall, J. (2002). Guilt-free tutoring: Rethinking how we tutor non-native

English speaking students. Wring Center Journal, 23, 23-44.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "conversation of mankind." College

English, 46, 635-652.

Carino, P. (2002). Reading our own words: Rhetorical analysis and the institutional

discourse of writing centers. In P. Gillespie, A. Gillam, L. F. Brown, & B. Stay

(Eds.), Writing center research: Extending the conversation. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carter-Tod, S. (1995). The role of the writing center in the writing practices of L2

students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database. (AAT 9606230).

Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and

decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan

Press.

Cogie, J. (2006). ESL student participation in writing center sessions. Writing Center

Journal, 26, 48-66.

Cogie, J., Strain, K., & Lorinskas, S. (1999). Avoiding the proofreading trap: The value of

the error correction process. Writing Center Journal, 19, 7-32.

Harris, M., & Silva, T. (1993). Tutoring ESL students: Issues and options. College

Composition and Communication, 44, 525-537.

Hays, G. (2010). Learners helping learners in an EFL writing center. In A. M. Stoke

(Ed.), JALT 2009 Conference Proceeding, 1-8. Tokyo: Japan Association for

Language Teaching.

Hays, G., & Narita, M. (2011, June). How can I help you?: Exploring tutor/tutee interactions

in an EFL writing center in Japan. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second

Language Writing, Taipei, Taiwan.

Johnston, S. (2009). Writing centers in Japan and Asia. The Language Teacher, 33(6),

— 221 —

ft* • 1-1111-ft —CV

33.

Johnston, S. R., Cornwell, S., & Yoshida, H. (2010). Daigaku raityingu senta no kouchiku

to unei ni kansuru kennkyuu - EFL no shiten kara [Establishing and managing

university writing centers - From viewpoints of EFL]. Grants-in-Aid for

Scientific Research (Kakenhi) Report No. 19520531.

Kennedy, B. (1993). Non-native speakers as students in first-year composition classes

with native speakers: How can writing tutors help? Writing Center Journal, 13,

27-38.

Le Corbeiller, S. H. (2010). Better readers, better writers: Tutoring reading in the writing

center (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Idaho State University, Pocatello,

Idaho, U.S.A.

Leki, I. (2009). Before the conversation: A sketch of some possible backgrounds,

experiences, and attitudes among ESL students visiting a writing center. In S.

Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd

ed., pp. 1-17). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann

Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Mei-writing site of Nagoya University. (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.ilas.nagoya-u.ac.jp/AWU/Mei-Writing/Top/Top.html

Myers, S. A. (2003). Reassessing the "proofreading trap": ESL tutoring and writing

instruction. Writing Center Journal, 24, 51-67.

Nakamaru, S. (2010). Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and

U.S.-educated multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19,

95-113. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.01.001

North, S. M. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46, 433-446.

Powers, J. K. (1993). Rethinking writing center conferencing strategies for the ESL

writer. Writing Center Journal, 13, 39-47.

Ritter, J. J., & Sandvik, T. (2009). Meeting in the middle: Bridging the construction of

meaning with generation 1.5 learners. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL

writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed., pp. 91-104). Portsmouth, NH:

Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Sadoshima, S. (2011) Nihon no daigaku ni okeru akademikku raityingu shidou

[Academic writing instruction at a Japanese university]. Retrieved from

— 222 —

Writing Centers in the U.S. and Japan

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/adv/wol/opinion/international _080609.htm

Severino, C. (1993). The 'doodles' in context: Qualifying claims about contrastive

rhetoric. Writing Center Journal, 14, 44-62.

The Academic Writing Center at GRIPS. (2011). National Graduate Institute for Policy

Studies. Retrieved from http://www3.grips.ac.jp/-awc/awc.html

Thonus, T. (1993). Tutors as teachers. Assisting ESL/EFL students in the writing

center. Writing Center Journal, 13, 102-114.

Thonus, T. (1999a). Dominance in academic writing tutorials: Gender, language,

proficiency, and the offering of suggestions. Discourse & Society, 10, 225-248.

doi: 10.1177/0957926599010002005

Thonus, T. (1999b). How to communicate politely and be a tutor, too: NS-NNS

interaction and writing center practice. Text, 19, 253-280.

doi: 10.1515/text.1.1999.19.2.253,//1999

Thonus, T. (2001). Triangulation in the writing center: Tutor, tutee, and instructor

perceptions of the tutor's role. Writing Center Journal, 22, 59-81.

Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What

is success? Assessing Writing, 8, 110-134. doi: 10.1016/S1075-2935 (03) 00002-3

Thonus, T. (2003). Serving Generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center.

TESOL Journal, 12(1), 17-24.

Thonus, T. (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second-

language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 227-242.

doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.012

Tsuda College Writing Center. (2011) Retrieved from http://www.twc.tsuda.ac.jp/

Waring, H. Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing center: Identity, expertise, and

advice-resisting. Applied Linguistics, 26, 141-168. doi: 10.1093/applin/amh041

Waseda University. (2011). What is the Writing Center? Summary of the Writing Center.

Retrieved from http://www.cie-waseda.jp/awp/en/wc/outline.html

Weigle, S. C., & Nelson, G. L. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case

studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 13, 203-225. doi: 10.1016/j/jslw.2004.04.011

Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center.

Journal of Basic Writing, 21, 16-34.

Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing

— 223 —

ft* • 1-11111-ft —CV

center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 173-201. doi: 10.1016/

j .j slw.2004.04.009

Williams, J. (2005). Writing center interaction: Institutional discourse and the role of

peer tutors. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage

pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 37-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Williams, J., & Severino, C. (2004). The writing center and second language writers.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 165-172. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.010

Yasuda, S. (2006). Japanese students' literacy background and the role of the writing

center. The Language Teacher, 30(5), 3-7.

Yoshida, H., Johnston, S., & Cornwell, S. (2010). Daigaku raityngu senta ni kansuru

kosatsu - sono yakuwari to mokuteki [Reports on university writing centers -

their roles and purposes]. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 61 (3), 99-109.

— 224 —