Writing center tutorial modalities have proliferated in recent years, yet research has not kept pace. Students’ experiences in online writing tutorials remain understudied (Denton, 2017; Hewett & DePew, 2015). Better understanding students’ experiences across session modalities is critical to achieving an inclusive and accessible writing center (Martinez & Olsen, 2015). This study used a mixed-methods, comparative design to determine how students selected, experienced, and perceived the accessibility of synchronous online, in-person, and asynchronous modalities. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of 138 surveys and 22 interviews indicated students perceived each modality to provide effective writing support. They report selecting tutorial modality based on convenience and communication preferences, as well as cognitive, affective, and linguistic factors. Students perceived the writing center to be accessible due to the availability of multiple tutorial modalities; however, they raised concerns about lack of appointment availability and the online consultation interface. By centering students’ perspectives, this study debunks longstanding assumptions about the inferiority of online tutorials and reinforces the imperative to offer multiple modalities, including asynchronous options. It also reminds us that we cannot take students’ perceptions of accessibility for granted. Writing center administrators have an ethical responsibility to listen to our students as we design and refine the services intended for them.

Recent scholarship has demonstrated the need for criticality toward writing assessments that privilege standard language ideologies and correctness-based approaches. However, teachers continue to experience discrepancies between their intentions and actions, struggling to address both content and form in facilitative, constructive commentary. This study uses the activity theory framework of pedagogical tools, composed of conceptual and practical tools, to analyze through interviews and commented-on papers how two college composition graduate instructors responded to student writing. This study finds that while one teacher held and enacted consistent and congruent pedagogical tools grounded in sociocultural theories of writing development, the other experienced entrenched conflict between competing beliefs about evaluative and process-oriented purposes for teaching writing. These contrastive experiences illustrate how instructors’ development of pedagogical tools is mediated by interactions between their epistemological orientations and language ideologies, reinforcing the need to surface tacit beliefs about Standardized English and academic writing. This study concludes with recommendations for productive intervention in novice composition teachers’ development of response practices.

As online writing tutorials become increasingly widespread, writing center scholars continue to debate the pedagogical differences between face-to-face and online tutoring However, empirical research has lagged behind technological advancement, with only one study (Wolfe & Griffin, 2012) comparing face-to-face and media-rich online writing center tutorials. This article builds on such scholarship by sharing results from a comparative study of face-to-face and synchronous audio-video online tutorials that collected data from writing tutorials, writers' postsession surveys, and interviews with writers. Using primarily linguistic analysis of the hundreds of interactions in each of the 24 transcribed writing tutorials, we determined that audio-video online and face-to-face sessions share similarities in tutoring strategies, discourse phases, tutor-writer interaction, and student satisfaction. However, significant differences were found