The Idea of a Writing Center-Response to essay by Stephen M. North

The establishment of the writing center in various academic settings was meant to engage writers in any stage of the writing process.  Comfortable in atmosphere and welcoming in nature, the writing center is a place where insightful conversation and positive interaction transpire.  The unique communication between tutor and writer is the basis for academic and literary growth.  However, the writing center is not a place where students should be unengaged or consider the tutor as sole editor of the work.  Sadly, current connotative trends regard the writing center as a “skills center” or “fix-it shop” for students striving to impress professors rather than grow as individual writers.  Stephen M. North has challenged these incorrect portrayals of the writing center and poignantly defined this resource as entirely student-centered.  By depicting North’s rationale behind the student-focused writing center, and through supplication of personal experience, one will note the transformation of thought that must occur. No longer are writing centers to be viewed as “skills centers” or “fix-it shops” but rather, a place for personal growth.

To begin, North describes the writing center as a place where written text is not the only component of a work to be altered.  It is important to engage the writer in a manner that will allow them to see visible mistakes, and learn to adapt positive changes in their assignments.  In other words, “the object is to make sure that writers, and not necessarily their texts, are what get changed by instruction.”  From a personal standpoint, I was originally challenged by this idea.  I struggled with a professor that heavily critiqued my work and suggested the writing center’s aid.  The professor argued that I used words incorrectly and that I did not concisely portray my ideas.  Initially determined to impress the professor and prove that I could compose an acceptable paper, I frustratingly entered the writing center.  I intended to make the necessary alterations and be more conscious of my thinking throughout the writing process.  What I learned however, was that the professor was correct in his/her critique.  I understood the importance of relaying ideas effectively, and that concise wording was more important than trying to impress the audience with unnecessary language.  Guilty of triggering North’s frustration, I had regarded the writing center as the “fix-it shop.”  I worked hard to make changes on my own, but still sought the tutor’s aid to fix any of the prior mistakes.  Moreover, I learned to adapt a new manner of thinking in my writing that seeks to clearly emphasize ideas and make sure that I use words effectively.  I have also learned that it is more important to consciously think about these changes in my writing than to sit next to a tutor and have them tell me the negatives.  In the end, I am the one who benefited because I will not need to rely on a tutor to simply “fix” all mistakes.  By taking priority in my writing, I ensure that my writing will progress.  As Stephen M. North concludes, the success of a writing center and its tutors relies on the visible changes of the writers that enter.