I ’m a writing instructor in higher education. I’m also a writing specialist in a support center. I work with students from all disciplines and cultural and linguistic backgrounds where I cover the whole spectrum of writing instruction. There is an instilled idea that writing centers serve only those writers needing remedial support (Chang & Goldrick-Jones, 2019; Lockett, 2019). Some students might agree, while others may see tutoring as editorial services or language support (Lockett, 2019). The reality is that writing support complements classroom instruction and is beneficial for all writers, no matter their grades or the quality of their writing. Because writing functions in relation to an audience, it’s important to have conversations about the message being conveyed. Tutoring can make writing less of an isolating process because students can access different audiences and, as a result, receive feedback that is in the function of its message and not only for the sake of a grade. Tutoring practices that include non-evaluative feedback and mindful approaches support writers’ growth holistically.
My Role as a Writing Specialist
Despite the existing assumptions about tutoring, I don’t “fix” student writing. I don’t proofread text or explain what it takes to get a better grade. I don’t start from a deficit approach, but rather, I listen to writers’ concerns and accompany them through their academic journey with a non-evaluative and mindful approach. I listen to writers’ voices and goals; I’m their audience. Often, students criticize themselves as if they don’t belong to their fields, especially after receiving discouraging grades or harsh feedback, so I remind them to focus on what they have already accomplished, rather than what they have yet to achieve. By focusing on the present and what students write, say, and want from their writing, I holistically support their growth as writers and their well-being within an academic environment.
The Reality of Student Writers
Many students perceive writing as a stressor because they think they do not have a story to tell, or they don’t have the words or skills to convey their ideas. Writing is a key component of all academic work, yet it is often taught only in freshman composition courses (Delyser, 2003), where the focus is mostly on the expression of ideas instead of how their delivery (Sallee et al., 2011). For students continuing to graduate school, the writing stakes are even higher. In some cases, writers don’t even know they have access to resources, and “many of the institutional resources [are] serendipitously shared rather than introduced by their programs as part of a larger structural support” (Yaylali et al., 2024). Lack of formal preparation to write and unsupportive environments lead students to believe it’s their fault if their writing doesn’t satisfy academic expectations. Writing stressors lead to several emotional and physical consequences such as burnout, lower perception of one’s academic performance, writer’s block, or imposter phenomenon, just to name a few. These affect not only students’ academic performance but also their overall well-being because the mind and body work as one unit (Dye et al., 2021). Non-evaluative feedback and mindfulness may help alleviate students’ negative feelings about writing, thus fostering their well-being.
The Role of Feedback
Feedback is powerful as it can motivate or discourage students from learning (Ferris, 2018; Macklin, 2016). Within academia, the most common feedback approaches, whether summative or formative, are often guided by criticism because assessment traditionally focuses on what is missing or incorrect. Evaluative feedback is problematic when it’s solely used to justify grades and point out what is “wrong,” as it fails to provide meaningful guidance that helps students learn and improve from their work. To help writers grow, feedback doesn’t have to be only evaluative.
Non-evaluative feedback is a type of formative feedback that relies on the use of non-judgmental language by promoting awareness of students’ writing patterns while acknowledging writer control and autonomy over their writing processes (Elbow & Belanoff, 1989; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). It aims to establish a mindful and compassionate dialogue between the writer and the reader(s) through questions and collaborative work instead of pointing out what is incorrect (Elbow & Belanoff, 1989; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Including non-evaluative feedback doesn’t mean omitting evaluation; non-evaluative feedback can supplement traditional evaluation through mindful practices and language that does not lead writers to believe their writing is “not good enough.”
Non-Evaluative Feedback and Mindfulness
Mindfulness is a practice known to ease the mind and reduce stress both at the physical and psychological levels. In simple words, mindfulness refers to being present in the moment and letting go of stressors of the past or present (Dye et al., 2021). While mindfulness is often associated with yoga or meditation, it’s a practice that can be done at any time and in any environment.
Non-evaluative feedback and mindfulness practices intersect in the “now” moment. Bringing writers’ attention to the present time, both in their writing and mind, can help to reconcile what the reality is versus what their inner stressors want them to believe as true. Student writers often worry about what they did or didn’t do, and what the expectations from the future are. This constant struggle between what was, what is, or will be affects their well-being with fear of incorrectness, imperfection, or non-belonging. Pairing mindful practices and non-evaluative feedback can raise awareness of stressors commonly associated with writing and develop strategies to maintain balance.
Putting Non-Evaluative and Mindfulness into Practice with Writers
To stay in the present, overcome obstructive thoughts that hinder writing, and increase overall well-being, I propose some simple mindful practices (see Figure 1) to help writers achieve mental clarity.
Figure 1: Sample of mindfulness practices
Mindfulness practices can vary depending on the context. For example, in a class, online writing room, or group, the practice can be at the start of the session. Allowing everyone to forget what happened before joining our space with reflective writing, breathing, or gentle body movements can be a fresh start for the session. These calming exercises also help me to switch my focus to the present time and focus on my students. Similar practices can conclude the session so that students are ready for what’s next in their day. When meeting students one-on-one, there is no need for clear structures, as students can lead the conversation based on their needs. Some students prefer to dive straight into their work, but that does not mean there are no forms of mindfulness. Non-judgmental and compassionate language still helps writers to ground themselves in the present moment and be less critical of their work. Some writers may not want to engage in any practice, and that is okay. Mindfulness is not about imposing but proposing a practice that may bring benefit.
Reflecting on My Role with Writers
Pairing a non-evaluative approach with mindfulness has allowed me to appreciate students’ writings and their needs more holistically. When I teach, I do not use the phrase “grading essays” anymore. I read students’ work to give them meaningful feedback and let them know that my comments are there to help them and not just as a function of a grade. During my tutoring sessions, some students have mentioned how our sessions have a therapeutic benefit on both their writing process and well-being. They come to our meetings with a burden (i.e., writing doubts, academic stress) and by talking through it, making a plan, revising drafts, and being mindful, they leave the meeting with a “Thank you, I feel better now.”
Nadia Moraglio, MA, is a writing specialist at the Writing Skills Improvement Program (WSIP) at the University of Arizona. At WSIP, she tutors, teaches, and facilitates writing groups. She also teaches writing and ESL courses at Pima Community College and has developed online course materials. Her areas of interest include non-evaluative feedback, contemplative pedagogies, developmental writing, and assessment.
References
Chang, D., & Goldrick-Jones, A. (2019). EAL Writers and Peer Tutors: Pedagogies that Resist the “Broken Writer” Myth. Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 29(1), 238–242. https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.731
Delyser, D. (2003). Teaching Graduate Students to Write: A seminar for thesis and dissertation writers. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260305676.
Dye, L., Burke, M. G., & Mason, C. P. (2021). Mindful strategies for helping college students manage stress: a guide for higher education professionals (1st ed.).
Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1989). Sharing and responding. Random House, NY.
Ferris, D. (2018). “They Said I Have a Lot to Learn”: How Teacher Feedback Influences Advanced University Students’ Views of Writing. Journal of Response to Writing, 4(2). Retrieved from: http://journalrw.org/index.php/jrw/article/view/114
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Lockett, Alexandra (2019). “Why I Call it the Academic Ghetto: A Critical Examination of Race,
Place, and Writing Centers.” Praxis, University Writing Center at the University of Texas at Austin, 16(2): 20–33. Retrieved from: https://issuu.com/titospanks/docs/16.2_spring_2019_full_special_issue
Macklin, T. (2016). “Compassionate Writing Response: Using Dialogic Feedback to Encourage Student Voice in the First-Year Composition Classroom.” Journal of Response to Writing, 2(2): 88–105.
Sallee, M., Hallett, R., & Tierney, W. (2011). Teaching Writing in Graduate School. College Teaching, 59(2), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.511315
Yaylali, A., Albrecht, S., Smith, K.J. & Shea, K. (2024). “Developing Writing Productivity in a Graduate Support Community.” Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-12-2023-0118
