Writing centers were founded on the idea that writing is a social, culturally situated, inherently human activity undertaken to intentionally create meaning (Bruffee 1984). Writing is thinking–reflection, analysis, synthesis. Writing is questioning, connecting, relating, rejecting, reformulating, reframing. Writing is expression of identity; it is an assertion of belonging within a discourse or a challenge to the limitations of discourses. Writing is inescapably human. That writing is an inherently human, inherently interpersonal activity is not news to writing center professionals nor writing tutors.

But, in an era of rapidly emerging technologies that increasingly play a role in composition and revision of texts (Kern 2024), how do writing centers make sure that our humanness stays “centered?” In other words, how do we frame for students and administrators the value of human conversation and collaboration alongside the convenience and speed of generative AI and other language-related technologies?

Writing center researchers, as well as language scholars more broadly, have begun to make that case. In a recent Op Ed in the New York Times, noted linguist Noam Chomsky lauded human intelligence over artificial intelligence for imagination, innovation, discernment, as well as ethical and emotional insight (2024). He claimed, “we know from the science of linguistics and the philosophy of knowledge that [GenAI programs] differ profoundly from how humans reason and use language. These differences place significant limitations on what these programs can do, encoding them with ineradicable defects” (Chomsky 2023). Further, while some assistive technologies make attempts at scaffolding learning (like the organizing and summarizing capabilities of Kurzweil 3000 or the Inspiration app), they lack the situated cultural awareness and affective influence of writing tutors. Writing tutors employ multiple means of cognitive and motivational scaffolding, like metacognitive questioning, active listening, relationship building, and expressions of empathy and support (Essid 2023; Mackiewicz & Thompson 2018). Not only do these very human-centered strategies make peer writing tutors valuable to writers, but they also put writing center professionals in a strong position to steer institutional conversations about technology and writing support (Dembsey 2017; Essid 2023; Harris 1995, 2000).

Let’s not let the rapidly changing landscape of emergent technologies like GenAI for research and generation text (ChatGPT, Grammarly; plagiarism detectors; digital literacy tools like Kurzweil, Co-Writer, CalRoRead Plus; digital graphic organizers; and online editing software drown out the voices of tutors and writers engaged in generative, creative, socially-situated collaboration. MAWCA furthers the calls of scholarly communities like IWCA and CCCC to explore writing centers’ relationships with emergent technologies. We solicit proposals that prompt us to refresh our connection to the very human nature of writing and writing centers within the rapidly evolving landscape of language-related technologies.

You might consider taking up questions like these:

In what ways do writing centers enhance student writers’ experiences with using Gen AI or other technologies for writing? How do we mediate between people and machines to support language learning?

What happens in writing centers beyond the page? In other words, what do tutors do to motivate writers? To reassure? To connect socially or create belonging? To serve as a cultural informant or academic mentor? To question established practices or language hegemony? How do writing center professionals advocate for effective, ethical writing pedagogy and linguistic justice? What does all this look like in the context of increased reliance on language-related technologies?

What is a writing center professional’s role in leading campus conversations about institutional adoption of technologies? Who are our audiences? Our partners? What does this conversation look like on your own campus?

What does research conducted by and in writing centers contribute to our collective knowledge about student attitudes toward and use of writing-assistive technologies?

How is the writing center differently equipped from GenAI and other assistive technologies to support students from vulnerable populations: multilingual writers, first generation college students, students of color, students with disabilities that affect their reading and writing processes?

Strong proposals will:

• Engage in a meaningful way with the conference theme
• Present new data from original research
• Demonstrate grounding in relevant theories or pedagogies of writing center work or writing instruction
• Clearly describe the audience for the session, what participants should expect to learn/do in the session, and what kind of takeaways the session is designed to offer participants

Sessions at MAWCA 2024 will be 50 minutes long. We welcome proposals in the following categories:

Panel Discussion - 3-4 presenters, 10-15 minutes per presenter plus Q&A/discussion time.

Individual Presentation - 15-minute presentation. We will group you with 1-2 similar presentations to create a panel.

Workshop - 50-minute interactive learning session on an aspect of writing center practice related to the conference theme; may include reflection, hands-on activities, small group work, and group discussion.

Roundtable Discussion - 50-minute facilitated discussion of an issue related to the conference theme; may include initial short presentations and guiding questions from facilitators.

Community Builder (akin to a Special Interest Group) - 50-minute facilitated conversation explicitly designed to create community among a subset of writing center practitioners; may be designed as an affinity group (e.g. BIPOC tutors, queer and trans tutors, neurodivergent tutors) or around a specific theme (e.g. advocating for writing center resources) or type of institution (e.g. HBCUs, community colleges).

Works in progress - Participants working on a manuscript related to the conference theme or who are developing a new writing center initiative will gather to introduce and receive feedback on their projects. Participants may be asked to read the abstracts of others’ projects in advance of the conference to allow for more productive time together.

Deadlines:

Proposal submission by January 12, 2025

Acceptance notifications by February 2, 2025

(If applicable) revise and resubmit by February 16, 2025

Presenters confirm acceptance by February 16, 2025

Early bird Registration ends March 4, 2025

References:

Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English, 46(7), 635–653.

Chomsky, N., Roberts, I., & Watumull, J. (2023, March 8). Noam Chomsky: The false promise of ChatGPT.

New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html

Dembsey, J. M. (2017) "Closing the Grammarly Gaps: A Study of Claims and Feedback from an Online Grammar Program," Writing Center Journal: Vol. 36 : Iss. 1, Article 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1815

Essid, Joe (2023) "Writing Centers & the Dark Warehouse University: Generative AI, Three Human Advantages," Interdisciplinary Journal of Leadership Studies: Vol. 2, Article 3. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/ijls/vol2/iss2/3

Harris, M. (2000). Preparing to Sit at the Head Table: Maintaining Writing Center Viability in the Twenty-First Century. The Writing Center Journal, 20(2), 13–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43442095

Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the Middle: Why Writers Need Writing Tutors. College English, 57(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/378348

Kern, R. (2024). Twenty-first century technologies and language

education: Charting a path forward. Modern Language Journal, 108, 515–533.

https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12924

Mackiewicz, J & Thompson, I. (2018). Talk about Writing: The Tutoring Strategies of Experienced Writing Center Tutors, 2nd ed. Routledge

Martini, R.H. (2016). Listening to stories about writing (centers): sites of innovation in (online) writing instruction. Dissertation, University of Houston.