Analyzing Stories from Canadian Academic Writing Instructors: A Collaborative Autoethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing instruction in Canadian universities takes a variety of forms. While there are few formal departments for writing studies, many institutions do have a writing centre – a place that offers writing instruction to varying degrees. The writing centre may be housed within a department, a library, or within a student services unit. Its position within a university may indicate the degree to which writing is valued by the administrative body. The goal of our paper is to share insights into the ways that writing professionals perceive, work in, and adapt to current demands for writing instruction in higher education. Using a collaborative ethnographic approach, three scholars at different career stages explore their experiences with writing centre work. Using data consisting of individually written reflections, our analysis revealed four major themes: (a) initial experience with writing centres, (b) community, (c) frustrations and tensions at work, and (d) mentorship. In this paper, we discuss our findings within the framework of positioning theory in order to understand how we position ourselves as scholars, mentors, and educators, and how we are positioned by others within the fields of writing studies and higher education. This study raises awareness about the value of writing centre professionals’ contributions, the place of mentorship within higher education, and the support required for continued writing centre work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".