In this blog carnival, we, writing center personnel, center on how emerging digital technologies have been impacting the writing center world. Therefore, we invited reflections from writing center tutors and administrators across geographical, linguistic, and cultural contexts to explore how they think and imagine the connections between digital literacy, multimodal composition, and writing centers (see the full CFP here.). What resulted is seven unique yet interconnected blog posts that serve as starting points for current and prospective writing center professionals and literacy advocates to collectively think about ways the interrelatedness of digital literacies and writing center studies could evolve the future of writing center epistemologies, research areas, and practices.
Unsurprisingly, generative AI (including platforms like ChatGPT) is a common topic among these blog posts. In “AI (kind of) in the Writing Center,” Tom Deans wrote about a problem he has witnessed among his writing center tutors about generative AI: “We hire confident and accomplished student writers who naturally default to what helped them succeed so well in school. And at least so far, that hasn’t been AI.” In his piece, he thinks one solution might be to “simply wait until AI-users age in, bringing their experience with them. In other words, live with the lag.” Similarly, Isabella Buck discusses a problem she has witnessed with generative AI and writing center praxis—a decreased attention to it. She writes: “as 2024 progressed, we observed a gradual decline in AI fervor. The initial shock had worn off, and a new normal set in. Some instructors adapted significantly, others partially, and some not at all.” As a possible solution, she urges writing center folks to “stay engaged, counteract ‘hype fatigue’, and remain open to ongoing AI developments without succumbing to fear or complacency.”
To navigate the affordances and constraints of generative AI and digital tools, it is imperative to develop what Bri Lafond and Thais Rodrigues Cons call “critical digital literacies.” Lafond discusses the writing center’s role in helping students navigate “opaque technologies,” explaining that “many writing center practices that help students confront the occluded genres of academic writing remain applicable in supporting students’ development of critical digital literacies.” Rodrigues Cons discusses critical digital literacy across three roles she has occupied—translator, tutor, and researcher—ultimately stating, “I learned to see the academic discourses and digital tools not as something detached from the individuals and practices at the writing center, but as intrinsically connected to the meaning-making of these communities.”
Lastly, this blog carnival provides insights into directors’ and assistant directors’ experiences with digital literacy and multimodality at large. Genie Nicole Giaimo shares her experience across writing centers, “multimodality has been far less groundbreaking; it hasn’t revolutionized my writing centers; it hasn’t reshaped or reimagined the core function of what we do.” She wonders if this is, at least in part, because “most of the work that students bring into the writing center remains text-based” and because she has “not recreated or renamed [her]writing centers to be multiliteracy centers with a focus on multimodality.” Elisabeth H. Buck complementarily reflects on her journey of “build[ing](and leav[ing]) a multiliteracy center,” specifically named a “multiliteracy center.” She discusses some of the baggage that came with setting it up and giving the center a title: “It is important to acknowledge that the word multiliteracy is not particularly accessible. I teach writing for public relations and quickly realized that the center essentially had a PR and name recognition problem.” Instead of strictly focusing on emerging technologies, Buck argues, “The time has passed for us to signal our attentiveness to fancy technologies. We need to emphasize that we provide all that the technologies cannot.” She encourages writing center staff “to focus on our biggest assets: the people who staff our centers.” Cristal Gamez does just this in her blog post—she centers her piece on peer tutors by ways of discussing directors’ observations and feedback. Gamez provides insights into the reasons for, and the processes of, conducting asynchronous observations. She concludes that she feels hopeful, noting: “Though we’ve only practiced it for a limited time, we look forward to continuing asynchronous observations and using its results to improve our training and how we approach asynchronous tutoring in general.”
Whether thinking through generative AI, critical digital literacy skills, name changes, or tutor observation modalities, these blog posts offer theoretical and practical insights into the connections between digital literacy, multimodality, and writing centers impacting imaginations of writing and its pedagogy.
We hope you enjoy reading these blog posts as much as we did,
Sarah & Saurabh
