Designing Effective Training Programs for Discipline-Specific Peer Writing Tutors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article demonstrates how the training of peer writing tutors in a disciplinary setting can be informed by writing centre scholarship and framed by the “Statement on Writing Centres and Staffing” (Graves, 2016). More particularly, the article offers a set of theory-supported criteria for designing effective training programs for peer tutors working in discipline-specific writing centres. It then describes a writing tutor-training program developed for an Eastern Ontario law school that incorporates many of the training criteria. The criteria are derived from theories about writing centre pedagogy, the writing process, and effective training for peer writing tutors. The criteria are framed by three of the statement’s “Best Instructional Practices for Writing Centres”: (1) peer tutors need to be educated and mentored; (2) writing support is best attended to in disciplinary contexts; and (3) writing professionals use and apply research from writing studies.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it