Human to Human: The Modern Writing Center’s Value in the Age of AI

A photo of Tawes Hall, where UMD’s own Writing Center is located

Would you rather a human or a computer give you one-on-one writing tutoring?

Last month, the Mid-Atlantic Writing Centers Association held its annual conference with the theme “Refreshing the Connection: Technology & Humanity in the 21st Century Writing Center.” Directors, educators and tutors from across the region gathered to discuss a diverse range of subjects surrounding the role of artificial intelligence in written practice, including a roundtable discussion from the University of Maryland—“Speculating on the Impact of AI on Writing Center Relationships.” These well-established spaces in higher education, designed to provide individualized feedback to students, are now grappling with anxieties and fears that technology might replace them entirely. 

The incorporation of generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Copilot into higher education is feeling more and more like an inevitability—take this compilation of speculations on it from various scholars and administrators, including the president of our own University of Maryland, Darryll J. Pines, who contends that “We must consider the technology’s upside.” Across all manner of educational spaces, instructors’ goals have begun to shift from constricting the use of generative AI to taking initiative in guiding students to use it responsibly. Certain classes at UMD are even incorporating a module on “AI and Information Literacy” into their curricula.  

But the educational microcosm of the writing center is pertinent to the discussion because of its unique positionality in the grand scheme of academia—its role as a middle ground between students and professors. Historically, writing centers have always shined in their ability to adapt to a wide variety of student needs thanks to their format of one-on-one peer tutoring, and to provide the type of safe and comfortable learning environment that might not always be found in classrooms themselves—a nexus connecting student and professor. One could argue this makes them particularly well suited to the impossible challenge of creating a direction for AI policy in tune with both long-held educational philosophies and the changing needs of students in an evolving world. 

Indeed, centers at institutions like Loyola Marymount University and the University of Pittsburgh-Bradford have attempted to leverage their positions to make an impact on broader AI policy. Ever adaptable, centers have found more and more ways to implement AI literacy and continue to provide resources for students in this new age, with their staff growing more and more receptive to taking more hands-on approaches to the technology. A 2024 report on the impact of AI writing tools on writing centers noted that there is little to no evidence that AI writing tools are truly replacing tutoring—and more significantly, that overall discussion has shifted from the consequences of these tools to their possibilities. 

Results from a survey comprising 81 responses across 74 different institutions, primarily from Writing Center administration

Writing centers, and those involved in teaching writing as a whole, have an incredible opportunity to ensure that the next generation of writers continue to gain vital communication and critical thinking skills even as they embrace new technologies. One pragmatic viewpoint that has gradually risen in popularity is that centers should be proactive in preparing to manage this new technology, regardless of the personal feelings of distaste many of their tutors feel towards it. Isabelle Lundin, a writing center tutor and scholar from Northeastern University, writes in the International Writing Centers Association’s own journal that “We must reflexively consider the assumptions rooted in our own emotions and opinions of AI as well to truly usher writing center practice into the era of AI.” However, to “usher writing center practice” into a new era also requires a very delicate balance between taking a more nuanced stance than vehement rejection and keeping in careful consideration how AI is shaping cultural perceptions of language and literacy itself. 

The conversation on AI and writing centers is incomplete without considering perceptions of AI’s potential place in writing more broadly, including those who are beginning to contend that it is a necessity. Organizers from the now shut down creative writing organization NaNoWriMo, built around guiding new writers and credited by numerous authors as what helped them complete their first novels, have even tried to claim that to reject the use of AI tools in any way is classist and ableist. To contend that it is so integral to the writing process—particularly for writers who are poor, disabled or neurodivergent—paradoxically diminishes their capabilities and the accomplishments countless individuals have made without technology. 

Not all examples of this cultural phenomenon are nearly as extreme, but what stands out about this example is the fact that it was a creative writing organization involved. Writing of all kinds is so inherently a creative, personal, and vulnerable process, but despite its impressive surface-level capabilities, generative AI by nature strips away the creative and personal from the writing process. One study from Cornell University indicated that AI homogenizes writing toward Western norms, stifling the nuances of cultural expression for—in this case—participants of Indian backgrounds. 

So how can educators continue to cultivate the unique and vibrant individual voices of their students? Perhaps best through a model of learning and teaching that can be freely adjusted to individual students—exactly the type of model the university writing center has pushed for and provided to clients for decades. 

Writing centers are already well situated to provide the kind of assistance some claim AI is best for at no extra cost. Their methods are often some of the best ways to meet students where they are, offer individualized support, and help them lean into their own unique strengths and authorial voices—not to mention the benefits they hold for tutors, too, who often learn alongside those who consult them and gain valuable skills from the experience. And on the subject of cultural nuance, writing center scholars have already discussed and debated on how to preserve it and subvert the idea of “standard English,” especially when teaching writers who are learning English as a second language. 

One way or another, generative AI will shape writing, language, and authorship as we know it, and it’s important that those involved are prepared for its impact. But the human connection that drives the writing center, and the human creativity that drives writing and teaching writing in the broader educational landscape, is critical to not forget or neglect in the process, especially as a new generation of writers develops their voices.