Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie

Avant-propos - Foreword

Sara Vecchiato — 2026-03-31

Introduction: The Present and Future(s) of Writing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence/Le Présent et le(s) Futur(s) de la Rédaction à l’ère de l’Intelligence Artificielle

Cara Violini — 2026-01-06

Simulated Social Action

Sarah Banting — 2026-01-06

Previous analyses of the rhetoric of literary criticism establish English studies as a disciplinary discourse community with both a characteristic rhetoric and a distinctive rhetorical approach to research activity, albeit one that is gradually changing over time. The findings of these prior studies allow me to examine LLM outputs to assess whether and how they simulate this disciplinary rhetoric. The comparison showcases differences and similarities between the rhetoric of literary criticism composed by human writers and the simulated literary-critical rhetoric that AI is capable of generating in 2025. This study shows that there remains a profound difference, although the superficial similarities between human- and LLM-composed literary criticism are striking. I will argue that while LLMs effectively signal the genre of the literary research article, they fail to register its rhetorical context or undertake its characteristic social action.

Where We’re At, What We Must Know, and Where We Can Go: A Systematic Review of Research about Writing and Artificial Intelligence

Christopher Eaton — 2026-01-06

This paper uses a systematic analysis to develop a thematic map of scholarship on AI, writing, and writing pedagogies. The project, developed between a university instructor and nine undergraduate students, had two central aims. The first was to synthesize the early research conversations on AI in writing contexts. The second was to identify gaps that will point to important next steps as the scholarly record on AI and writing develops. The paper presents five prominent themes: AI literacy, evaluating AI outputs, rhetoric in Human-AI interactions, AI and bias, and academic integrity. Conversations on AI literacy and academic integrity represent conceptual level discussions around AI and writing. The conversations around evaluation, rhetoric, and bias align more with AI writing practices and how these practices affect teaching and learning. Together, they provide a useful snapshot of scholarship and inform future work in a rapidly developing research conversation.

Doctoral students’ use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in academic writing: Their engagement with AI-powered writing tools

Vickie W.K. Li — 2026-01-06

Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, a range of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools have emerged to support students’ English academic writing, benefiting particularly English as a second language (ESL) students. Previous studies have examined students’ knowledge, perceptions, and practices of using GenAI tools in writing, focusing primarily on undergraduate students. Research on postgraduate students’ engagement with GenAI remains relatively limited; yet, these students are expected to demonstrate a higher level of writing proficiency to effectively disseminate their research to the academic community. To address this gap, this study aims to examine how ESL doctoral students engage with GenAI tools behaviourally, cognitively and affectively in a thesis writing course. Data was collected through questionnaire surveys and focus group interviews. Findings reveal that most student participants viewed GenAI as a valuable tool in assisting their writing; yet, they were hesitant to use the technology as they have higher stakes regarding academic reputation, as well as the originality of their research writing. This research has significant pedagogical implications regarding: i) the support and help that doctoral students need to effectively use GenAI in their writing; and ii) the possible ways of integrating GenAI technology in academic writing courses.

Avoid, Adopt, Adapt: Positions on GenAI in Canadian Writing Centres

Gillian Lisa Saunders — 2026-01-06

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools are transforming academic writing support in higher education, but student- and public-facing messaging from Canadian universities, and subsequently their writing centres, has been slow and inconsistent (Cheatle, 2025; Marcel & Kang, 2024; UNESCO, 2024). In the summer of 2024, two writing centre advisors conducted an environmental scan of writing centre websites and publicly available materials related to messages about GenAI literacy support. Documents were collected and assessed for 1) a “statement” or “policy” on GenAI use and assistance in the writing centre and 2) a stance toward using GenAI for writing, which we categorized broadly as able to assist with GenAI writing concerns (i.e., adopt) or disavowing use or assistance in the writing centre (i.e., avoid). Environmental scans facilitate discovery of opportunities and threats during times of change in the interest of making decisions and plans for the future. Our scan provides a snapshot of how writing centres, as well as the institutions they operate within, are positioning themselves within the current GenAI post-secondary landscape. This article contextualizes results within the current post-secondary landscape and offers recommendations and implications for the conceptualization of writing centre work.

Generative AI + Socio-Rhetorical Views of Writing

Katja Thieme — 2026-01-06

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools increasingly influence writing practices in educational contexts, yet writing studies expertise is too often sidelined in current discussions about writing in the context of generative AI. This paper presents core insights from rhetorical genre theory and genre-based pedagogy as a way to inform the teaching of research and writing in relation to generative AI tools. Our analysis focuses on three key concepts that are of central concern: intention, process, and trust. Attention to these concepts helps us navigate between extreme hype and grave concern about generative AI tools and writing pedagogy. We draw on established theoretical frames and recent empirical research and highlight how longer-standing insights about intention, process, and trust relate to the teaching of research and writing in the presence of generative AI tools. This work contributes to ongoing conversations about the role of AI in writing pedagogy by foregrounding deep disciplinary expertise and recent empirical evidence.

Always Watched, Always Watching

Mercedes Veselka — 2026-01-06

Generative artificial intelligence is disrupting the pedagogies of educators who teach writing. Amidst the disruption, they are grappling with who this technology is asking them to become. Drawing on Foucault’s metaphor of the prison panopticon as a surveillance mechanism, we explore how teachers are positioned by surveillance of student writing post-generative AI. This paper highlights the experiences of two educators working in distinct policy contexts. Part of a broader study (n=39) exploring how language and literacy teachers in secondary and postsecondary contexts work with, around, or against the use of AI in student writing, the focal perspectives in this paper show the tensions of remaining the teachers they want to be while constrained by their institutional contexts. In understanding how these educators both resist and take-up the role of ‘AI detective’, the findings illustrate how writing pedagogies are shaped by surveillance. The role of the AI detective not only has implications for the ways educators see themselves, but also their ways of seeing learners. This research contributes to theory and practice at the intersection of artificial intelligence, writing practices, and teacher agency, offering critical questions to empower pedagogical responses to generative AI.

What We Talk about What We Talk about Gender-Inclusive Language: Teaching and Learning the Singular “They” in the First-Year Writing Classroom

Sarah Copland — 2025-04-08

Over the past decade, interest in the singular “they” has burgeoned in scholarly venues and mainstream media, but writing studies scholars are surprisingly absent in these conversations. To contribute a writing studies perspective, I studied the impact, value, and challenges of teaching this gender-inclusive pronoun in three sections of my institution’s required first-year writing course. I found that, prior to instruction on gender-inclusive language, students used the singular “they” liberally and were not aware of how gender-inclusive they were in their writing and speaking. After learning multiple gender-inclusive writing strategies, students indicated increased awareness of their own use of gender-inclusive language, interest in using it, confidence in their ability to use it, and appreciation of its relevance to their own lives. They preferred the singular “they” over other gender-inclusive writing strategies. My study concludes that, in addition to students’ work, their self-assessments are a vital, complementary source of information for assessing the value, impact, and challenges of teaching gender-inclusive language, as the nexus of perceived use, interest, ability, and relevance drives whether students will transfer their learning to other contexts. These findings may also be relevant to teaching other forms of inclusive, bias-free language in writing courses.

Ctrl+AI+Learn

Talla Enaya — 2025-04-24

This teaching report describes a workshop delivered at the University of Toronto Mississauga as a part of the Robert Gillespie Academic Skills Centre’s (RGASC) Head Start program. The workshop was premised on two guiding ideas: (1) since the University of Toronto maintains flexible guidelines regarding generative AI (hereafter genAI) policies across courses, undergraduate students benefit from participation in candid discussions of the contextual nature of shifting technological values and (2) first-year university students are in the unique position of also needing to contextualize the shift from high school to university learning contexts, so they are in particular need of opportunities to discuss the diversity of perspectives surrounding the permissibility of genAI use in higher education. The workshop led students through noticing the differences between high school and university learning expectations; applying socially oriented theories of communication; contextualizing “local” genAI syllabus policies; and crafting a personal theory of acceptable genAI use. This report is a collaboration between an undergraduate student (Author 1) and a writing professor (Author 2). To support educators in replicating all or part of this exercise within their own local contexts, workshop materials are appended.

Writing Together: Building Social Writing Opportunities for Graduate Students: A Book Review

Matt Rahimian — 2025-06-13

Book Review Caplan, N. A., & Johns, A. (2019). Changing Practices for the L2 Writing Classroom: Moving Beyond the Five-Paragraph Essay. (Eds.). University of Michigan Press ELT.

Leila Farzinpur — 2025-12-09

Lucia Thesen (2024). Knowledge-making From a Postgraduate Writers’ Circle: A Southern Reflectory. Multilingual Matters.

Jonathan Faerber — 2025-08-18

Although writing can be a form of knowledge and knowledge-making, it is far from the only way postgraduates create and exchange knowledge. A recent book by Lucia Thesen details several ways in which a writing group at the University of Cape Town anticipates and responds to dominant constructions of knowledge and time within the academy. Ultimately, her discussion illuminates the possible benefits for students when writing interventions are conceived as an alternative to usual forms of assessment and knowledge rather than an instrument used in service of a narrow view of scholarly traditions.

Review of Angela Laflen’s Critical Data Storytelling in the Composition Classroom

Kathy Block — 2025-11-06

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2023). Plain language - Part 1 : Governing principles and guidelines. Norme ISO 24495-1:2023

Émilie Michaud — 2025-04-29

The International Standard on Plain Language (hereinafter "the ISO standard") sets out guidelines for written communication. Although the ISO standard is currently only available in English, its principles are intended to be universal and are the subject of a consensus. Backed by empirical data, the work of the experts involved has resulted in a rather concise standard.

Since the work of the expert committee is based on empirical data, we wondered whether the content of the standard incorporated current Writing studies knowledge. If so, we'll see whether the standard can serve as a basis for the teaching of Writing studies. This article works as a review of the standard.