PeerCentered

     As composition continues to occur more frequently on digital mediums, institutions must question digital file types in terms of their accessibility. An unquestioningly and commonly used but inaccessible file type used by instructors is the DOCX file.        The DOCX file fails to be accessible due to a variety of structures built within the file type’s coding. DOCX files are, “not suitable for interactive help” (MS Word DOCX) this means, for example, that text-to-speech functions cannot be added to DOCX files. Furthermore, DOCX files limit program choice as they can only be run on, “a limited number of special software[s]” (Kivi) this can force students with dis/abilities to use unaccommodating programs. This program limitation comes from the very design of DOCX files which are, “a collection of XML files containing different types of content zipped in an archive. [DOCX files require] specific software with capabilities of correctly reading the XM...

     Writing centers should increase the availability of multimodal tutoring tools if they wish to grant equitable access to writing improvements for students with dis/abilites. Allison Hitt properly identifies that, “spaces [should not be simply] minimally accessible, but instead [be able] to consider how the disabled may be able to most fully participate.” Some advocate for multi-literacy as the biggest key to granting students with dis/abilities access to writing centers. However, it is multimodality that grants students with dis/abilities equitable access to tutoring services. Multimodal tools are more useful for a wider range of students with dis/abilities than multi-literacy tools. Furthermore, multimodal pedagogies can more easily push for assistive technologies than multi-literacy centers. In addition, multimodality is a form of multi-literacy that covers more ground than standard multi-literacy tools can cover. Writing centers must provide tutors with up-to-date ...

I've recently become interested in two areas that don't seem to garner much discussion amongst people writing about the writing center: the read-aloud portion of tutoring sessions and tutoring creative writers. Granted, these two topics don't seem to overlap (though I promise they do have an overlap in my odd brain, but since it isn't completely relevant to my point here I won't bore you with it), except in their shared absence of discussion, but I think both merit looking into a bit more, especially reading aloud. In my experience, and from what little I've found to read, it seems like most of us read aloud for a combination of fairly standard reasons: It's the least awkward way to find out what a client has written (having a client just sitting there silently while someone read through, and took notes on, their paper would probably be nerve-wracking and awkward). It seems to help clients notice things they wouldn't otherwise pick up in their writing (m...

There is a new blog in the 'sphere that focuses on antiracism work in writing centers, appropriately called Antiracist Writing Centers . It comes from the work of both the IWCA Antiracism Special Interest Group (SIG) and the staff of the University of Illinois Chicago Writing Center. Check it out!

If you haven't noticed, the entry for " Writing Center " on Wikipedia is woefully inadequate. I, therefore, put for the challenge of cleaning it up and making it more academic. I've been "taking care" of the entry for a few years now, but have done little else but trimming it down and making sure it didn't mis-represent our mutual work. What do you say, PeerCenteristas? Who has the gumption to make the entry 1) more scholarly and 2) more reflective of our community? Note: this doesn't mean just adding links, it means making it a better encyclopedic entry with sources noted.