Angela M Laflen

As generative artificial intelligence (gAI) tools become increasingly prevalent, writing instructors face challenges in addressing their ethical and pedagogical implications. In response to a rise in unethical gAI usage among students in English 5 at Sacramento State, graduate teaching associates in the English department incorporated AI literacy into their sections of English 5 through a revised rhetorical analysis assignment. This study examines the implementation and impact of this instructional shift during the Fall 2024 semester, when four graduate teaching assistants (TAs) introduced ~100 students to AI literacy through structured rhetorical analysis activities. The assignment sequence included identifying rhetorical moves in scholarly articles, collaboratively constructing a rhetorical moves chart, prompting and analyzing ChatGPT outputs, and composing a comparative rhetorical analysis essay. Findings indicate that explicit AI literacy instruction significantly reduced unethical gAI usage, as reported by TAs who observed declines from 15-25% in Spring 2024 to under 5% in Fall 2024. Students engaged critically with both human-authored and AI-generated texts, recognizing limitations in gAI’s rhetorical sophistication and citation accuracy. Additionally, integrating gAI into coursework fostered a shift from a punitive approach to a collaborative learning environment, allowing students to explore AI’s strengths and weaknesses responsibly. This study underscores the importance of proactive AI literacy education in writing pedagogy, demonstrating how structured engagement with gAI can enhance critical thinking and ethical technology use in academic settings.

There have been few studies examining the variation that exists within modes of feedback: for example, comparing how electronic text feedback created using Google Docs differs from electronic text feedback created using Microsoft Word or how audiovisual feedback created using TechSmith Capture differs from audiovisual feedback created using Screencast-O-Matic. However, the programs that instructors use to create feedback have different affordances, meaning that even within a single mode, the feedback students receive on their writing can vary significantly. To better understand the variation that exists within a single mode, this study investigates how affordances of Canvas Speedgrader, Google Docs, and Turnitin GradeMark impacted electronic text feedback.Based on analysis of 131 feedback files created using the 3 programs, in conjunction with 5 student surveys, and 2 instructor interviews, the study provides insights into how instructor written commentary (location, form, type, focus, and mitigation) varied by program and how participants perceived of feedback provided through the 3 programs. The study...s primary finding is that the affordances of the programs used to create electronic text feedbackresulted in significant differences ininstructorcommentary and instructor and student perceptions of feedback. •Features of electronic text feedback differed depending on the program used to create it.•Program used made a difference to comment location, type, focus, and form.•Participants perceived of feedback differently depending on the program used.•Affordances of the programs associated with convenience were especially valued.

Abstract This article discusses how we have used undergraduate research (UR) to foster habits of mind associated with information literacy (IL). Our strategy is course based and involves students as potential contributors to the Graphic Narrative Database (GND), a digital work in progress. Presenting students with focused parameters for their research and with the prospect of an authentic audience for their writing, the assignment provides students with many opportunities to explore our complex information landscape as practitioners. Students deploy a wide array of strategies to gather and share information about a body of texts that are themselves richly multimodal.

In this chapter we consider how applying Borgman and McArdle’s (2019) recommendations for being a responsive and strategic online instructor to labor-based grading contracts in online writing instruction (OWI) can help us develop a strategy for response aimed at making our courses more equitable for all students. Labor-based contract grading, which makes student labor in the course the basis for assessment, has been identified as a more equitable method of assessment for diverse learners, and this method of assessment also works against the assumption that some students bring to their online courses that they are “correspondence like” (Borgman & McArdle, 2019, p. 30). For these reasons, labor-based contract grading can be an appealing response strategy to use in OWI. Nevertheless, this strategy can be difficult to implement effectively in OWI due to students’ unfamiliarity with contract grading and the constraints imposed by learning management system (LMS) technologies. These challenges can lead to user experience problems for students and instructors that leave students confused about course grades and instructors discouraged from using grading contracts. We contend that a student-centered design approach is necessary to use grading contracts as an effective response strategy in OWI, and we share the grading contract documents we use in our own online classes and discuss how these are designed around students and their needs.

•Eli Review can align well with online writing instruction (OWI).•Eli Review mitigates the drawbacks associated with peer feedback.•Even tools designed for peer feedback do not align with all peer feedback approaches. Eli Review is a web-based platform that was built by composition faculty for the primary purpose of scaffolding online peer feedback activities. Eli supports a very particular feedback strategy characterized by students completing frequent small writing assignments, participating in regular peer reviewing activities, and using the feedback received to generate revision plans. Faculty focus on scaffolding the activities, debriefing the entire class based on the peer feedback, and providing feedback to students on their feedback. In this review, I consider how Eli’s interface and supporting materials reflect theories and assumptions about writing pedagogy and discuss how Eli shapes the feedback that students receive on their writing. I also discuss the possibilities and limitations, particularly in the context of online writing instruction (OWI), of Eli’s approach to feedback.

Writing instructors spend considerable time responding to student writing with the expectation that students will use that feedback to improve their writing. However, a number of studies have questioned the extent to which students apply instructor feedback to improve their writing or transfer it to new writing situations. Timing of feedback and students’ interest in feedback are frequently discussed in the literature on response as two factors that impact students’ ability to apply and transfer response. In this article I consider the relationship between the two factors and whether students’ behavior as they access feedback is related to when in the writing process feedback is provided. I report the results of a study using site statistics collected by a learning management system that compares students’ rates of opening instructor feedback on preliminary drafts and final papers. I also examine whether students’ rates of accessing feedback on preliminary drafts changed over the course of the semester from the first assignment to the final assignment. This study illustrates that the timing of instructor feedback significantly impacts students’ behavior as they access feedback and suggests that instructors prioritize feedback on preliminary drafts to encourage students to apply and transfer feedback.