Academic discourse is highly complex and requires writers to follow specific writing conventions. Many Saudi university students have underdeveloped writing skills (Al-Khairy, 2013). One way to assist second language (L2) learners and develop their academic writing skills is through academic language support offered by writing centres. The challenge for writing centre tutors lies in the predominant belief among many L2 students that tutors’ only role is to fix students’ mistakes. Although there has been significant growth in writing centres in Saudi universities, the perceptions of writing tutors concerning tutoring non-native students are still under-researched. This study uses thematic analysis to explore the role of writing tutorials as perceived by writing centre tutors in Saudi settings. Data were obtained using an interpretive inquiry through individual interviews of two tutors. The main findings of the interviews were that tutors perceived proofreading requests, low writing proficiency of tutees and tutees’ understanding of tutors’ role as influencing their tutorial practices. The implementation of this study may help regulate the role of tutors in writing centres in Saudi universities by highlighting new avenues that can improve writing tutorials, especially in Saudi Arabia.

Academic writing requires a skillful use of markers and linguistic features. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the efficacy of a one-time intervention on the use of contrastive discourse markers (CDMs) by Saudi female English major undergraduates. The present study also surveyed the opinions of writing skills instructors about CDM instruction and investigated factors that may affect the use of CDMs by undergraduates. A convenience sample of 100 students was selected from Levels 6 and 8: fifty students of each were recruited from the Colleges of Arts and Sciences in Buraydah and Onayzah cities, Saudi Arabia. Pre- and post-tests were used to collect data from student participants. Data from teacher-participants were also gathered through a questionnaire. Results of t-test analysis support the hypothesis of the significant impact of the intervention on the mean scores of the intervention group, M = 10.90 vs. M = 6.24, t(98) = 12.03, p < 0.0001. There were no significant differences by grade level. The writing skills teachers reported that the knowledge of the different meanings of CDMs affects students' use of the markers. Factors such as the inadequate practice of critical thinking skills, the types of writing tasks, and reading-writing connection may influence students' use of CDMs. The results suggest that the knowledge of CDMs and the different meanings that they signal can improve learners to perform better.