Because source use is a key academic literacy skill tied to students’ socialization into the university, scholars have called for more research on how novice second language (L2) writers’ use of sources changes over time as they engage with disciplinary discourse. The present study, therefore, tracked the semester-long development of thirty undergraduate L2 students’ source use in a research writing seminar course. Each student wrote two research papers for the course, providing sixty papers for both quantitative and qualitative text analysis. The researcher conducted data analysis in terms of citation density, source type, citation type, and source use purpose. Findings showed that students’ engagement with scholarly articles led to formulation of new citation patterns: incorporation of research summaries and frequent use of nonintegral citations. In addition, citation density increased overall, with scholarly sources newly used in theoretical orientations to John M. Swales’s CARS model. Nonetheless, students’ papers demonstrated a lack of proficiency in the sophisticated aspects of source use. The discussion concludes with suggestions for source use instruction in line with students’ understanding of disciplinary discourse.

This Research Brief presents an overview of current research in community-engaged writing, particularly foregrounding the importance of praxis-oriented and collaborative approaches. Here, we articulate collaboration, reciprocity, and accountability as some of the main tenets of community-engaged writing, and we showcase the variety of projects that such work can include (from local food writing to prison literacy work to transnational social justice movements and beyond). Then, we explore some of the methods and methodologies that are central in this scholarship, drawing on examples that engage storytelling, oral history and interview methods, archival methods, ethnographic research, and even public performances and workshops. We conclude with a discussion of future possibilities for research, teaching, and the imperative to see community-engaged work as part of scholarly work in tenure, promotion, and review.

This article examines one of the largest and most influential sites of knowledge production in the field of writing studies: College Composition and Communication ( CCC ). Based on a bibliometric network analysis of intra-journal citations in the journal, this article uses two metrics borrowed from network science, eigenvector and betweenness centrality, to highlight different “centers” of CCC . As this article illustrates, whereas the eigenvector centrality measure can help newcomers to the field determine the “key” articles on a global scale, the betweenness centrality measure enables more experienced scholars to identify the articles that are significant in local contexts because they serve as bridges between different areas of the discipline.

US higher education faces mounting political pressure and censorship, resulting in threats to our institutional missions and challenges to academic freedom. In this article, we trace two moments in disciplinary history that examine (mis)understandings of how censorship functions: efforts to roll back the Guidelines for Nonsexist Use of Language in NCTE Publications (now Statement on Gender and Language ) and Students’ Right to Their Own Language , both approved by NCTE in the mid-1970s. We draw from the feminist theories of Kate Manne and bell hooks to analyze materials from the NCTE and CCCC archives, documenting the rhetorical and logistical moves employed in these rollback efforts. In doing so, we identify how the exploitation of organizational apparatuses contributed to the subversion of a larger and necessary priority: establishing credible disciplinary boundaries to serve as a bulwark against political encroachment into literacy education. In sorting through these case studies, we offer examination of how misguided censorship accusations can threaten our discipline when actual censorship efforts are enacted by governmental entities.

This article seeks to present a model of critical factors that influence writing transfer by exploring and extending conversations happening in the field. The article identifies five critical and interconnected factors that support writing transfer: connection, perception, reflection, disposition, and fortification. These factors emerge from an integration of writing transfer scholarship and data from a longitudinal study of student writers. In that study, six participants were followed for seven years (from first-year composition past graduation and into the workforce) and asked to explain their experiences and perceptions of writing. I offer these five factors to spark a broader conversation about how multiple overlapping influences contribute to writing transfer and to encourage further research into how these factors interact and reinforce one another.

This article focuses on the seldom-discussed literacies of the Hip Hop audio engineer through the experiences of Lyrix, a Black woman audio engineer from the Midwest. Grounded in the literature of literacy scholars invested in the sonic dimensions of Hip Hop culture, two research questions guide this article: How does one develop their expertise as an audio engineer, and what insights can be gathered about literacy learning by focusing on marginalized Hip Hop figures, such as women audio engineers? This article ultimately argues that Lyrix’s experience underscores a nonlinear approach to sonic literacy education, highlighting a transitory approach that ruptures and flows through barriers of access. The article concludes with suggested starting points for future research on Hip Hop literacy studies in particular and literacy studies more broadly.

This piece was originally delivered as the CCCC Chair’s Address at the 2025 CCCC Annual Convention in Baltimore, Maryland, on April 10, 2025. It has been lightly revised for a print format.

Taking stock of the diminishing material conditions faced by contemporary writers broadly conceived, this article (re)frames writing as a site and a practice of exploited labor. Arguing that writing scholars have often avoided interrogating writing’s links to labor, particularly with respect to declining working conditions and the appropriation of value from workers, I draw attention to the pervasive crisis of writing’s devaluation under late capitalism. To evidence this assessment, I apply political economist Harry Braverman’s conception of the “progressive alienation of the process of production”—the notion that labor is increasingly eroded through capitalism’s advancement—to the scene of contemporary gig writing, specifically Amazon’s microtask platform Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk, I maintain, offers a paradigmatic illustration of contemporary writers’ material exploitation, both for its efforts to de-skill writers and for its conscription of writers to advance their own exploitation by employing them to train generative AI.

This letter was written for the CCCC membership in September 2025; it has been lightly edited for publication here.

Writing studies scholarship lauds reflection’s capacity for building metacognitive understanding and facilitating transfer. Meanwhile, feminist and antiracist pedagogy scholarship highlights reflection’s ability to create spiritual and societal change. By contextualizing reflection within institutional and programmatic contexts, we argue that writing scholars can revise assignments to account for reflection’s contributions to civic and spiritual identity development. This cross-institutional case study analyzes patterns in first-year students’ reflective writing across three writing programs. Drawing on five codes for reflective identities—scholarly, writerly, professional, civic, and spiritual—we found that scholarly and writerly identities were emphasized regardless of context. However, students often had an “excess” in reflection, writing about civic and spiritual growth when prompts did not invite it. In conversation with university and program mission statements, we argue that instructors and WPAs can leverage reflection to expand beyond a single classroom context, ultimately tapping into its potential to create individual and social change.

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academic writing has raised questions about the syntactic complexity of AI-generated texts compared to human-authored essays. While studies have explored syntactic complexity in human writing, limited research has compared AI-generated argumentative and narrative texts, particularly in isolating cognitive overload and proficiency factors. This study addressed this gap by examining genre-specific syntactic patterns in AI-generated essays. Using the L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer, the study analyzed four hundred AI-generated essays (two hundred argumentative and two hundred narrative) and employed paired T-tests and Pearson correlation coefficients to identify differences and relationships among syntactic measures. Results showed that argumentative essays demonstrated higher syntactic complexity than narrative essays, especially in production unit length, coordination, and phrasal sophistication, while subordination measures remained similar. Correlation analysis revealed that argumentative essays compartmentalized ideas through coordinated and nominally complex structures, while narrative essays integrated descriptive richness through longer sentences and embedded clauses. The findings suggest that genre-specific rhetorical demands shape syntactic complexity in AI-generated writing. Implications for teaching and learning writing and future studies are discussed.

In response to disruptions introduced to the job market by AI resume screeners, this article introduces a novel theoretical framework for the life cycle of artificial intelligence systems to help unblackbox resume screening AI systems. It then applies the AI life cycle framework to a digital case study of RChilli’s job-resume matching algorithm. The article introduces an eleven-step computational job-resume matching assignment that writing instructors can use in their classrooms to explore the pedagogical implications offered by the AI life cycle framework. The assignment helps students simulate important phases in AI production and development while highlighting biases and ethical concerns in AI screening of resumes. By exploring job-resume analytics, this study helps to teach critical AI and data literacy, make job-resume matching algorithms more explainable, and transform how professional writing can be taught in the age of automated hiring.

From an unsettled, ambivalent middle between discourses of generative AI integration and refusal, we offer a critical-ethical stance for AI-engaged writing assignments. We apply a critical thinking framework to these assignments, assert critical AI literacy as a kind of critical thinking, and discuss how critical thinking and critical AI literacy can facilitate ethical discernment about generative AI use. This unsettled, critical-ethical stance positions scholars in our field to support context-sensitive pedagogical responses to generative AI across first-year writing, Writing Across the Curriculum, writing centers, and beyond.

In a relatively short time, market and political forces have intensified the reach of artificial intelligence (AI). AI has become, in a word, climatic—not only a discrete technological system but also a creeping assemblage of ideological, material, and political forces. This article tracks these forces by developing rhetorical climates of AI as a conceptual framework. In doing so, I aim to (1) link the harms of climate change with the rapid buildout of AI infrastructure and (2) shift the frame of the conversation by emphasizing the extractive, exploitative, enclosed, and knotted supremacist conditions that have been prerequisites for building AI systems at scale. While these pervading rhetorical climates may seem unchangeable, I track how microclimates of resistance have developed, in the past and in the present. In particular, I emphasize the importance of bodily intelligence in navigating asymmetrical conditions of power felt in the AI industry. The article concludes by discussing how rhetoric and writing studies can weather the unfolding rhetorical climates of AI by diagnosing conditions, seizing moments, and plotting futures to imagine a less extractive and less harmful world.

In gaming, cheat codes change how players engage a system by inviting exploration and reducing the fear of failure. Drawing on writing center pedagogy, this article proposes a similar framework for navigating generative AI in writing instruction and positions play as a method for developing critical AI literacy. Writing centers have long served as spaces where students engage collaboratively with new technologies and construct meaning through dialogue. This article extends that tradition by positioning writing center pedagogy as a framework for helping students examine AI’s ethical implications through treating it as a rhetorical situation to be unpacked, which demands principled, human-centered engagement rooted in values such as collaborative exploration. By weaving together writing center praxis and game-informed pedagogy, this article contributes to ongoing conversations in writing studies about how to integrate AI in ways that support critical thinking and ethical reflection. It demonstrates how playful, classroom-tested activities can animate discussions of bias and representation while helping students build rhetorical discernment through experience. Ultimately, the article argues that ethical literacy must be practiced through relational, iterative work. As writing classrooms become one of the few remaining spaces where students encounter generative AI with support and critical context, writing instructors have a vital opportunity to help students learn to write with, against, and around powerful technologies.

Over the past year, Antonio Byrd, Ira Allen, Sherry Rankins-Robertson, and John Gallagher developed researched recommendations for a Generative AI policy for CCC . From these recommendations, the CCC editorial team wrote an official policy, which is available on our website at https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/ccc-generative-ai-policy/ . We, the editorial team, are grateful for the thoughtful, generous work of these scholars on this project, which is the foundation of the following symposium.

I argue that composition studies must build critical awareness about how humans from the Global South train AI with their writing embodiments. To draw our attention to how those working in the Global South train AI in harmful conditions, even though AI companies use algorithms and terms of service to smooth away these embodiments, I adapt the concept of humans-in-the-loop. Critical awareness of humans-in-the-loop moves scholarship in writing studies from a focus on AI-human collaboration that begins after an AI produces a text to one that requires us to see how AI products are always already human authored. Through a case study of Google Translate, I demonstrate how a critical awareness of how AI can erase the writing embodiment of humans-in-the-loop affords me opportunities to ask generative questions: How does language translation play a role in the erasure of embodied writing? Why does AI produce with bias toward marginalized populations when marginalized populations are those that moderate AI? Overall, I ask compositionists to see AI products as already human authored so that writing studies can consider the invisible labor of humans-in-the-loop as the field moves forward in researching AI.

This Research Brief discusses transformers—the core engine for most artificial intelligence applications. The brief situates transformer technology within the field of rhetoric and composition by surveying recent studies; highlights the innovative aspects of transformers; and, finally, thinks through (Majdik and Graham) the operations of transformers and generative AI through Miller’s theory of topoi, illustrating one way in which rhetoric and composition scholars and teachers can critically engage with generative AI in instruction and research.

Extracting a writer’s profile from a broader literacy study aimed at documenting extracurricular literacy practices among the Latinx population in Northwest Arkansas, this article presents a case study of a Peruvian woman’s lifelong use of literacy to enhance her personal agency in the face of personal, social, and civic demands. The article presents the writer’s profile as an indicator of the various literacy demands faced by the Latinx community and suggests that a critical consideration of such demands may lead to improved understanding and theorizing of writing through a lifespan writing research lens. Such a reorientation to writing may have a beneficial impact on first-year college composition courses by cultivating pedagogical practices oriented toward socioculturally diverse student populations and nontraditional students in college-level writing courses.

This study explores student engagements with hybrid writing courses, revealing their experiences and perceptions of a modality that blends in-person and online instruction. Hybrid learning as a format is often overshadowed by its association with fully online instruction. After a number of writing courses on our campus were redesigned for hybrid delivery, we conducted interviews and focus groups with students taking those courses. What we found, among other things, was that students largely saw hybrid writing courses as striking a balance between the flexibility of online learning with opportunities for human contact and the social presence afforded by in-person class meetings. Even more intriguing, though, was how students talked about the purposes of—and relationships between—the online and in-person components of their hybrid courses. In other words, it was not just the case that students appreciated hybrid learning, but also that clear patterns emerged in the meanings and values they ascribed to the constituent elements of these courses and the perceived cohesiveness of instruction across the modes. This study ends with implications for the design and implementation of hybrid writing courses, and it emphasizes the need for further scholarship that recognizes the unique affordances and challenges of this instructional modality.

Exploring multimodality and transfer from the perspective of transduction (a multidisciplinary term that describes a change in form as something moves from one state to another) reveals conceptual overlap between the two concepts. Transfer is fundamentally multimodal because anything moving from one “place” to the next must change its form (or modality) in some way. Multimodality also inherently involves a transfer from one context to another. Each concept requires that existing content or knowledge be changed in some way to account for new situations. Multimodality and transfer do not describe a one-to-one duplication, but a transduction, changing form from one context to the next.

The majority of what we compose, we compose for others. Because audience impact is central to the success of writing and designing, peer review tests how our compositions work in the world. Accordingly, we have built decades of scholarship establishing best practices for sharing our work with others, especially as new technologies emerge. This article argues for the introduction of eye tracking as a tool that can supplement peer review, offering an expansion of what counts as feedback that fosters greater access and agency for students throughout the writing process. The method for incorporating eye tracking to expand traditional peer review modalities moves students from passive research subjects to active users of eye-tracking data. In doing so, students can examine how audiences experience their work, helping to frame revisions of their multimodal compositions and consider what story they most want to tell.

This article presents a constructivist writing placement framework, developed from the study of two pilot iterations of a local writing placement mechanism at a large public research university. Through preliminary analysis of data from these pilots, we present a model of constructivist writing placement and demonstrate how it helps move conceptualizations of student agency as primarily housed within student exercise of choice toward more robust understandings and facilitation of student agency via placement. Extending recent calls to reconsider methodological traditions like directed self-placement to more explicitly account for educational equity issues, our two pilot assessments illustrate how we might reposition student agency within writing placement as emergent from situational interactions with faculty and the institutions they represent, rather than merely authorized by them.

What are we in rhetoric, writing, and literacy studies currently practicing? What practices do harm and, in contrast, which counter harm? How do we disrupt everyday, cumulative, and structural injustices and instead invest in accountability? In addition to asking these and other questions, this article engages four accountability practices that are necessary for countering the ongoing violence of the mythical norm (Lorde), of domination, and of harm within higher education: (1) resisting denial of ongoing harms; (2) recognizing normalized violence; (3) divesting from whiteness; and (4) investing in a consistent, relational approach to seeking justice. These practices help us tap into and amplify the work of BIPOC feminist and womanist educators-scholars-activists (including Ahmed, Gumbs, hooks, Mingus, and Royster) who have been countering epistemic injustice by building linguistic resources and expanding what we can name. These practices are part of a whole in which taking a piecemeal approach entrenches the current state of affairs: white supremacy status quo and normalized violence. Together, these add up to a call for striving toward justice in a sustained, momentum-gathering way.

This Research Brief provides an overview of the current scholarship on transnational feminist rhetorics (TFR), drawing from interdisciplinary traditions. TFR inquiries should always begin with “a cogent analysis of power” (Dingo et al.), attending to how transnational power dynamics act on gendered bodies and how those bodies engage with and speak back to intersectional geopolitical forces. They rely primarily on the analysis of textual and visual artifacts in historical and contemporary contexts and use a variety of concepts and theories from rhetoric and elsewhere, grounded in the lived experiences of marginalized communities. The Research Brief ends with a discussion of future directions for this field, calling for more interdisciplinary inquiries, continued critical intersectional engagement with diverse transnational communities and subjectivities, reflexive and ethical research practices, and pedagogical applications.

Critiques of neoliberal capitalism have offered a rich vocabulary for the analysis of the political economy of literacy across professional, public, and classroom contexts. Since the Great Recession, commonplaces about work-readiness have been conditioned by economic precarity and changes to the social contract of work that blur the lines between professionalization and exploitation. Looking beyond the confines of the neoliberal present, the uncertain future of work for our undergraduate students will be shaped by what the World Economic Forum describes as the “double-disruption” of the pandemic and the rise of automation. Whereas neoliberal critique offers a vocabulary for describing many job seekers’ experience of the present, this article seeks to recover an element of “literacy hope” (Wan) by looking to speculative and utopian postcapitalist theory to inform and challenge career guidance conversations with students in writing studies. By framing the future as a resource in the rhetorical constitution of present-day workers, this article advances an inquiry-focused career-guidance pedagogy that asks: How do our assumptions about the future of work inform our relationships with employers and each other in the present?

A chair’s address in four movements, dedicated to Mike Condon, from whom I have learned everything I know about kindness.

This article shares three focal participant profiles from a national study on graduate student writing pedagogy in rhetoric, composition, and writing studies. Working toward a more linguistically just discipline, this research explores how we might teach graduate students disciplinary genre expectations while centering their embodied ways of composing.

This essay discusses the conflict a compositionist from the US-Mexico border encounters in teaching composition amidst migration. Through autohistoriando, the author shares his experiences inside and outside of the composition course at this border to analyze and respond to this conflict.

This letter was written for the CCCC membership in June 2024.