This document discusses the appropriate role and activities of embedded tutors in college classrooms. It begins by exploring how the tutor role is not clearly defined, as they are not teaching assistants, observers, or instructors. The optimal role for tutors is described as being an "ally" of students, directing attention to students as individuals in a supportive rather than instructive manner. The document then outlines a range of core and supplemental activities tutors can engage in, such as determining their role with the instructor and students, learning course content, building rapport, and collaborating with instructors. It also provides recommendations for tutor training and managing embedded tutoring programs effectively to benefit students.

1. Running head: EMBEDDED TUTORS 1
The Appropriate Role and Activities of Embedded Tutors
Darla Nagel
Baker College

2. EMBEDDED TUTORS 2
The Appropriate Role and Activities of Embedded Tutors
What am I supposed to do in a classroom? Am I a teaching assistant or what? An
embedded tutor may have these thoughts, and they are worth exploring. Colleges structure
initiatives that allow tutors to work in classrooms differently, which complicates discerning the
most appropriate role and activities for embedded tutors. However, exploring studies on writing
tutors working outside writing labs, though not often called embedded tutors, yields insights for
directors and tutors. Although the literature focuses on tutoring writing, embedded math tutors
may also benefit from these insights. Understanding the supportive role and collaborative
activities of embedded tutors enables employees and directors to apply research-based
recommendations to classroom-based tutoring.
The Appropriate Role of Embedded Tutors
The embedded tutor’s role is the foundation for determining which activities are
appropriate to engage in. However, that role is not clearly defined. Embedded tutors are not
classroom observers, teaching assistants, personal assistants to the instructor, or instructors. They
have authority over students because instructors introduce them into courses (Little Liu &
Mandes, 2005). On the other hand, the instructor and possibly the tutoring director supervise
them (Smith, 2008). This middle-ground role may sound like the description of a teaching
assistant, but that is inaccurate. Smith (2008) uses the inability to proctor exams, be substitute
lecturers, and grade assignments to differentiate embedded tutors and teaching assistants.
Although tutors should not assume the instructor role, they should not go to the other extreme.
Assuming a classmate or observer role is unproductive (Little Liu & Mandes, 2005). In what role
is the embedded tutor optimally productive, then? Murphy (2001, as cited in Little Liu &
Mandes, 2005) describes the role as directing attention to students as individuals and being more

3. EMBEDDED TUTORS 3
supportive than instructive. Therefore, in one word, the embedded tutor should be an ally of
students.
Possible Activities of Embedded Tutors
This role of ally manifests in a range of essential and supplemental activities. Learning
this range will enable tutors to select tasks that fulfill the needs of each unique class. Cairns and
Anderson (2008) list the following as essential tasks for their writing associates (i.e., embedded
tutors):
• determine how the instructor and students define the tutor’s role
• negotiate the definitions
• learn about the assignments and course content
• create rapport with the students
• partner with the instructor
• seek other ways to assist the students and instructor
These are somewhat vague for a reason: The unique interaction among students, the instructor,
and the tutor determines how to perform the tasks (Cairns & Anderson, 2008). To complete the
first three, meeting with the instructor at the beginning of the course and communicating at least
one more time are necessary. Having access to the course on Blackboard or the course textbook
along with the course syllabus is also important. Obtaining students’ definition of the role can
happen by asking the instructor, “What do students see my role as?” or by asking a sample
directly. Activities of Smith’s (2008) classroom-based mentors include facilitating group work,
participating in online discussion, forming study groups, planning brief classroom activities, and
presenting in class. The last two activities also appear in Mullin et al.’s (2008) list but in slightly
different forms. Tutors in their program participate in rather than plan in-class work and usually

4. EMBEDDED TUTORS 4
give brief presentations with the instructor or suggest topics for lectures. In addition, they
observe and collaborate with students (Mullin et al., 2008). These tasks require frequent if not
perfect class attendance. Along with attendance, a way to build rapport is to provide sincere
praise and encouragement connected to writing—or math, presumably (Little Liu & Mandes,
2005). Embedded tutors are used to working with students, but they cannot neglect the instructor.
Collaborating with faculty is vital to successful embedded tutoring. Tutors convey
students’ position and comment on class discussions (Mullins et al., 2008). This feedback must
not include criticizing teaching. Webster and Hansen (2014) urge tutors to make student writing,
or math by extension, and problems with it the focus of conversations with instructors. The needs
of the class determine what other forms of assistance tutors can provide. For example, a unique
activity Cairns and Anderson (2008) mention is independently creating a handout on differential
equations for the instructor to distribute. Baker tutors have already performed alternative
activities. They have helped students reset passwords before class, written comments on drafts at
the instructor’s request, and reviewed an instructor’s new handout to ensure it is accurate (J.
Thibeault & J. Kilburn, personal communication, December 6, 2016). Collaboration between the
tutor and instructor enables both to work well for students’ benefit.
The literature is thorough in describing tutors’ activities, but one article clarified what
activities not to do. First, Little Liu and Mandes (2005) recommend not waiting for students to
seek assistance. For example, ask the student what he or she has done so far to complete a
writing assignment or math problem. This is gentle enough to avoid being invasive, which is
how Little Liu and Mandes (2005) describe effective in-class tutoring. They also recommend
avoiding Socratic questioning because of the need to spend time with multiple students. Also in
the interest of time and because of classroom-based tutors’ authority, minimalist tutoring is a

5. EMBEDDED TUTORS 5
questionable approach (Little Liu & Mandes, 2005). Tutors must be proactive and willing to try
new strategies.
Recommendations to Those Who Manage Embedded Tutors
With the previous findings in mind, it is appropriate to consider how directors of
embedded tutoring can make the program most beneficial. First, Hall and Hughes (2011) do not
force embedded tutoring on instructors but select only those who are flexible, willing to
collaborate with tutors, and willing to encourage students to work with tutors. After selection,
Hall and Hughes prepare both instructors and tutors for their collaboration. Instructor preparation
takes place in a meeting that lists tasks they must perform, such as communicating periodically
with the tutor. Tutor preparation takes place through a course (Hall & Hughes, 2011). That
course should include multiple tutoring strategies because minimalist tutoring appears to be less
effective inside classrooms (Little Liu & Mandes, 2005). Cairns and Anderson’s (2008)
recommendations are to leave freedom for instructors and tutors in policies, train tutors in the
previously listed core tasks, facilitate communication among embedded tutors and their faculty,
and ensure there is enough institutional investment in embedded tutoring for it to achieve its
goals. To illustrate that freedom, consider that the only requirements of their classroom-based
tutoring program were that instructors introduce tutors to the class and that tutors dedicate two
hours outside of class every week to work with the students. Each instructor and tutor pair
determined what role the tutor would play (Cairns & Anderson, 2008). What takes place at the
end of the course is as important as the preparation at the beginning. Webster and Hansen (2014)
assert that reflection is vital to benefit from embedding tutoring. To that end, a final
recommendation is that embedded tutors debrief on their experiences at the end of the course

6. EMBEDDED TUTORS 6
with the director or the instructor. Directors work behind the scenes but affect the success of
embedded tutoring.
Conclusion
Here is an illustration of how the appropriate role could play out during a class, with
recommended tasks in parentheses. The tutor arrives early so that the instructor can give an
overview of the day’s activities (familiarizing himself with course content and identifying how
he can contribute). Then he sits at a place where he can see most of the students (being
approachable). He listens to the lecture (modeling). Later, at the instructor’s invitation, he shares
his advice to write citations while drafting, not afterward (collaborating with, not replacing, the
instructor). As students start a worksheet on integrating source material, he roams the room,
prompting students who have nothing written and praising good effort (building rapport and
taking initiative). After the students leave, the instructor asks for his observations, and he
explains that two students appear to be falling behind, leading to mutual brainstorming about
how to help (giving student-centered feedback). This exemplifies a class that is likely to have a
positive effect on students. With increased personal classroom experiences to learn from,
understanding of what makes embedded tutoring effective will improve, with exciting
implications for students primarily but also faculty and tutors themselves.

7. EMBEDDED TUTORS 7
References
Cairns, R., & Anderson, P. V. (2008, March). The protean shape of the writing associate’s role:
An empirical study and conceptual model. Across the Disciplines, 5. Retrieved from
http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/fellows/cairns.cfm
Hall, E., & Hughes, B. (2011). Preparing faculty, professionalizing fellows: Keys to success with
undergraduate writing fellows in WAC. WAC Journal, 22, 21–40.
Little Liu, B., & Mandes, H. (2005). The idea of a writing center meets the reality of classroom-
based tutoring. In C. Spigelman & L. Grobman (eds.), On location: Theory and practice
in classroom-based writing tutoring (pp. 87–100). Logan: Utah State University Press.
Mullin, J., Schorn, S., Turner, T., Hertz, R., Davidson, D., & Baca, A. (2008). Challenging our
practices, supporting our theories: Writing mentors as change agents across discourse
communities. Across the Disciplines, 5. Retrieved from
http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/fellows/mullin.cfm
Smith, T. (2008). Integrating undergraduate peer mentors into liberal arts courses: A pilot study.
Innovative Higher Education, 33, 49–63.
Webster, K., and Hansen, J. (2004). Vast potential, uneven results: Unraveling the factors that
influence course-embedded tutoring success. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 12(1),
52–56.