This article examines how students use and perceive digital writing tools, including chat platforms and generative AI, within academic writing environments. It describes a qualitative study of 15 undergraduate students in guided focus group discussions. In a grounded theory analysis of focus group transcripts, the researchers explored undergraduates’ sense of copresence—their perception of support through both human interaction with both peers and instructors and AI technologies during their writing processes. Findings reveal that students’ trust in both peer feedback and AI assistance plays a crucial role in their writing, shaping their decisions about which tools to use and how they integrate human and AI feedback in the development and revisions of their writing. The study sheds light on students’ nuanced understanding of the affordances and limitations of multimodal chat platforms and generative AI technologies. We conclude by highlighting the need for pedagogical practices that support students’ choice of tools when collaborating in digital spaces. We suggest future research directions that will enable us to better understand how copresence and trust influence students’ writing in these contexts.

Providing effective written feedback to ESL students poses a challenging yet crucial task for language teachers. While numerous studies have delved into critical feedback, few have explored students' perceptions of praise in written feedback. To gauge students’ view of praise, we analyzed responses to two types: person praise (e.g., "You are a good writer") and performance praise (e.g., "You used the past tense correctly"). Language proficiency levels (high and low) and cultural backgrounds (Asian and Romance) were also considered. ESL students ( n = 100) were given feedback on an essay they wrote and surveyed about praise comments. In addition, three focus groups were conducted. Quantitative data indicated a preference for both praise types, while focus groups revealed a preference for performance over person praise. Lower proficiency students valued and considered praise to be more change-invoking than high-proficiency peers. Additionally, students from Romance cultures favored praise more than Asian cultures. Interaction effects highlighted nuances, such as high-proficiency Asian students perceiving praise as less kind, valuable, positive, and clear than their Romance counterparts. These findings offer insights for teachers and administrators to develop an informed praise philosophy and recognize which praise type best meets their students’ needs.

This article makes a case for the importance of integrating public writing pedagogy in and beyond second language (L2) writing classrooms. Public writing is defined as a situated, distributed act of engaging public audiences through writing, with various semiotic resources and modalities, to make meaning, connect, and bring about social change. L2 writers practice public writing deliberately or unwittingly, for various personal or political purposes, and within various discursive contexts. However, such practices are underresearched, undertheorized, and underdiscussed in L2 writing classrooms, which could be partially ascribed to the disciplinary disposition of the field L2 writing and to the ethical concerns regarding cultural assimilation. The article begins by contextualizing the definitions of public writing in relation to L2 writing. It then explains why it is important to discuss public writing in an L2 writing classroom and consider public writing a legitimate L2 writing issue while acknowledging the pedagogical resistance. In particular, the article highlights the decolonial potential of practicing public writing in an L2. In the final section, the article offers pedagogical guidelines and a graphic framework concerning the “where” and “how” of teaching public writing in an L2.

Using both a Bakhtinian and a collaborative writing framework, in this qualitative study, we sought to understand writing practices in one elementary school. Through observations in three classrooms and interviews with students, the study found that students had opportunities to engage in a variety of collaborative writing activities, including supportive contributions and co-constructing a text. When engaging in supportive contributions, students inspired, assisted, or shared their work with peers. In collaborations of a single text, students who had experiences writing with one another negotiated ideas and texts successfully. In pairs where students experienced conflict, there tended to be fewer collaborative moments, and students sought help from the teacher. The study demonstrates that students’ relationships with one another play a significant role in collaborative writing practices and highlights the important role of friendships in successful interactions.

This study explores educator attitudes, beliefs, and experiences regarding writing and writing instruction before and after participating in a week-long Summer Institute (SI) facilitated by leaders at one National Writing Project (NWP) site. Throughout the SI, the 12 educators (i.e., instructional coaches and classroom teachers) participated in personal, creative, and professional writing designed to support them as writers and writing instructors. Study participants completed a survey before the SI and at its conclusion, which captured their perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences about writing and writing instruction, as well as the importance of writing in education. Findings demonstrated that many participants viewed themselves as writers prior to the SI with this amount increasing at the conclusion of the SI, and many reported increased writing confidence. There were inconsistencies in the ways participants defined what it means to “be a writer,” and findings suggest that writer identity is influenced by writing confidence and enjoyment, with some participants struggling to navigate the dual identities of writer and writing teacher. Study findings suggest that addressing the writer-teacher identity crisis is crucial for fostering effective writing instruction. Teachers need time, space, and opportunity to immerse themselves in their writing and practice different skills to then apply to their instruction. Buy-in from school districts to provide such opportunities and a willingness to support teacher autonomy will enable teachers to better support students as writers and engage them in meaningful writing instruction for authentic tasks and audiences.

In 1974, the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) drafted a statement recognizing students’ right to their own language. However, many writing classes, including those in college, continue to teach Standard English as the only acceptable language in the classroom. In this article, I argue that a critical place-based college composition course can demonstrate to students that nonstandard dialects can coexist in the writing classroom. Drawing on my experiences teaching critical place-based composition courses, I describe the writing assignments that encourage students to reflect on how their “hometowns” have influenced their current identities as well as to critique the commonly held assumptions that marginalized communities, such as Appalachia, matter less than places with more cultural capital. I also demonstrate how the assignments in this class can encourage students to critique the assumption that Standard English is the only acceptable language in the writing classroom. A critical place-based composition course has the potential to increase students’ sense of belonging in college, inspire students to be more culturally aware of the places they find themselves in, and aid in designing a composition curriculum that is more in line with the CCCC's statement recognizing students’ right to their own language.

Multilingual writing is a challenging process that requires adjusting to academic and cultural demands. Studies of multilingual writers acknowledge the need for learners to self-regulate their cognition, affect, and actions as they write. Scholarship in educational psychology emphasizes socially regulated learning, suggesting that the regulation of learning is facilitated or hindered not only by the self but also by others. There is, therefore, a need to examine how developments in educational psychology and multilingual writing inform efforts to promote language learners’ writing skills. This article introduces a theoretical model of self- and socially regulated multilingual writing that can guide empirical research. The narrative literature review method was used to inform the design of the model. The review revealed that self- regulated writing by multilingual writers involves activating background knowledge and motivational beliefs, which then lead to decisions about strategies to employ to accomplish a writing task. The review also identified effective processes of socially regulated writing, including cognitive strategy instruction and formative assessment practices, particularly feedback. Finally, the review surfaced gaps in the literature that could be addressed, including how multilingual writers interpret writing tasks, manage their time and environment, deal with distractions, respond to feedback, seek help, and reflect on their successes and failures.

Important challenges faced by inexperienced academic writers include how to present an appropriate stance when commenting on their own research or on work by others, and how to successfully acknowledge and engage with readers’ needs, queries, and perspectives. This study investigated how well 22 new graduate writers from L1 and L2 backgrounds were able to convey stance and engagement in literature review assignments prepared for a graduate writing course. They claimed little or no prior knowledge in this skill area before taking part in 12–14 hours of instruction and practice where stance and engagement strategies were a core component before submitting reviews of approximately 1000 words. Analysis of post-instruction texts and students’ reflective comments revealed that students’ declarative knowledge had progressed, and that most were able to display an adequate or satisfactory level of proficiency in their writing. Based on these findings, I hypothesize a trajectory of stages of writers’ skill learning of stance and engagement strategies that acknowledges its complexities and the need for extensive practice to develop procedural skill. This proposed pathway makes explicit the fact that learning by novices is likely to progress incrementally, together with advances in their knowledge and self-confidence as academic writers and members of their disciplinary communities.

This article offers insights into elementary-aged students’ perspectives as they embark on composing collaborative multimodal narratives. Contributions from research literature on the writing process, conference practices, and multimodality situate the study. Analysis of students’ responses on a retrospective interview protocol that focused on students’ recollections of the experience, illuminated three findings that may be used to generate questions for effective writing conferences for multimodal compositions. Questions can be asked to support students as they navigate technology, gain insights into modal selection, and determine their collaborative approach to the composing process. Moreover, learning more about students’ decisions as they compose multimodal texts leads to a richer understanding of the affordances of multiple modes in writing and recommendations for creative effective writing conferences.

This article offers insights into elementary-aged students’ perspectives as they embark on composing collaborative multimodal narratives. Contributions from research literature on the writing process, conference practices, and multimodality situate the study. Analysis of students’ responses on a retrospective interview protocol that focused on students’ recollections of the experience, illuminated three findings that may be used to generate questions for effective writing conferences for multimodal compositions. Questions can be asked to support students as they navigate technology, gain insights into modal selection, and determine their collaborative approach to the composing process. Moreover, learning more about students’ decisions as they compose multimodal texts leads to a richer understanding of the affordances of multiple modes in writing and recommendations for creative effective writing conferences.

Teaching Writing in English as a Foreign Language: Teachers’ Cognition Formation and ReformationH. Zhao and L. J. Zhang. Springer Nature, Switzerland (2022).XXII + 178 pp., € 106.99, ISBN: 978-3-030-99991-9

Effective narrative writers create immersive reader experiences through precise linguistic choices. Teachers can support effective linguistic choice-making in young writers through the process of imaginative embodiment, a method of narrative thinking framed by cognitive stylistics concepts and their embodied effects. In this article, I assess the effects of an imaginative embodiment pedagogy on fifth grade writers’ narratives by examining how their linguistic choices contribute to immersion. As part of the study, four Grade 5 teachers attended a training session on imaginative embodiment and applied the approach throughout a nine-week narrative writing unit with 12 students via one-on-one writing conferences. To study the effects of the approach, a linguistic analysis was conducted on student writing completed before and after the writing unit. The analysis was driven by a stylistic checklist that codes grammatical features to embodied effects, as well as an interpretive analysis of these features’ overall effectiveness on immersion. Findings suggested that students’ linguistic choices changed in response to learning the process of imaginative embodiment. Specifically, choices were characterized by their embodied effects, contributing to greater textual immersion. This suggests that teaching imaginative embodiment can improve writers’ narratives by affording them specific strategies for expressing meaning.

Finding the right way to start a new piece of narrative writing often induces anxiety in writers. This paper will discuss beginnings as a problem for both practitioners and instructors, analysing different practices of how writers select a meaningful point in time at which to start a narrative. It will examine beginning as a theoretical problem and explore the importance of intersectionality when considering how writers and instructors conceptualise beginnings. It will then consider beginning as a pedagogical problem, and how much writing prompts, free and automatic writing exercises, and online writing communities, offer differing responses to this issue. Finally, the paper will discuss different ways that narrative beginnings can be conceptualized and approached.

Peer feedback has long been an essential part of a process approach to writing in university EFL classrooms. This study examines how the affordances of peer feedback are shaped by students’ language choice. We interviewed 27 Chinese university students in an English writing course about their experiences giving and receiving oral peer feedback on an initial and revised draft of an essay. Semi-structured interviews were analyzed thematically and triangulated with stimulated recall, transcripts of peer review discussions, and content analyses of learners’ incorporation of feedback across essay drafts to better understand perceptions and actions following from language choice during oral peer review of their L2 writing. Findings show that students incorporated 56 percent of oral peer feedback instances when revising, and almost all of these occurred in students’ first language, Chinese. Participants described the L1 affordances of clarity, efficiency, and pragmatics as important considerations when giving oral feedback on peer writing. Through triangulation of oral peer feedback discussions, change across essay drafts, and student interviews, language choice is shown to be a supportive practice for L2 writers in oral peer feedback. In contrast to previous research that suggests that the L1 is used primarily for solving problems and less frequently for discussion of content, our findings show that students chose to use their L1 for peer review because of the perceived support offered for improving their writing – namely, clarity, efficiency, and pragmatics.

Although the field of heritage language education has thrived in recent years and has focused primarily on the development of biliteracies in Spanish heritage language (SHL) students (e.g., Belpoliti & Bermejo, 2020; Samaniego & Warner, 2016), there is a scarcity of research on SHL students’ writing practices. Moreover, instructional practices and technological developments have transformed the landscape of SHL writing, underscoring the need to understand SHL students’ practices and perceptions of writing. The present study explores this gap in the literature by reporting on an online survey taken by 96 SHL students in the United States. SHL students reported a desire to improve their writing and regarded linguistic issues (e.g., accuracy, accent marks, and writing conventions) as their primary challenges. They considered technology helpful while writing in Spanish, but their use of social tools was not widespread. Although student responses often aligned with educators’ perspectives from previous research (Padial et al., 2024), students reported using English to plan their writing more frequently than instructors reported teaching the use of English as strategy. Students overestimated the importance that their instructors gave to grammar and orthography/accentuation.

In our information age, written communication has become increasingly important in many professions. As a result, university faculty and administrators need to develop specific curricula and pedagogies that will facilitate the process of equipping students with the required writing knowledge and skills to meet the demands of their workplace environments. In this article, we argue that Writing Across the Professions (WAP) as a curricular model meets that requirement, particularly in Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) contexts, which we believe are conducive to fostering writing transfer in university students. WAP foregrounds the importance of writing in workplace contexts and aims to facilitate the transfer of students’ knowledge and practices by focusing on rhetorical genre theory and analysis, discourse community theory and analysis, providing engaged feedback on students’ writing, and inviting students to critically reflect on their previous and current writing knowledge and practices. In this article, we propose four conceptual foundations that university faculty and administrators can utilize to implement WAP programs at their institutions. The first concept is that professional (writing) knowledge and practices are contextual and require lifelong learning; WIL faculty and students thus need to be informed about what is involved in learning to write across professions. Secondly, as the transfer of professional (writing) knowledge and practices goes beyond disciplinary boundaries, both faculty and students need to build contextual awareness. Thirdly, as problem-solving is an integral part of writing in the professions, faculty and students need to engage in critical reflection. Finally, professional (writing) knowledge and practices impact identities and therefore require mentoring. In outlining these shared concepts from WIL and writing transfer research, this article offers examples of how they can inform curricular approaches and pedagogical practices in WAP.

This study presents findings and strategies found to be successful through encouraging reflective thinking about classroom practices related to access, equity, and diversity. We asked, ‘How does classroom practice change when teachers reflect on equitable instruction? Do teachers recognize biased practices in their classroom? How might a teacher’s instruction unknowingly create barriers for students, thus limiting student learning?’ Over the course of one semester, participants worked collaboratively to reflect on equitable classroom practices to affect student voices. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was conducted through virtual discussions and online platforms. Here, we share reflections that surfaced during the online discussions.

This qualitative case study explores the experience of three first-year English language arts educators within a small community of practice designed to provide personal and professional support for beginning teachers. The participants engaged in a 6-week session where weekly meetings focused on participant experiences and English language arts pedagogy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper describes a fieldwork program and companion tool, The Teaching of Writing Framework, that college-based teacher educators and teachers from the Hudson Valley Writing Project, a site of the National Writing Project, developed over a three-year period. Central to the fieldwork program is an apprenticeship that allows future teachers to assist mentor teachers in a summer enrichment program for adolescent writers. The apprenticeship, coupled with reflective writing and mediated by the framework, allows future teachers to practice, identify, and reflect on writing instruction in which writing functions as a tool for learning and humanization.

In this reflective article, we draw upon Richardson’s (2002) advice for configuring words to view the world through poetry, through an analysis of our own social and digital selves into and through the early days of COVID-19. Verselove is a month-long digital poetry challenge, a space to welcome teacher-writers from around the world to create, learn, and share. Through the common passion for poetry, Verselove is a space of new creative professional growth and inquiry through a poetic lens. Since we did not come to Verselove as a research project or with this framework in place, we share what Verselove is and then offer our theorizing about how we are coming to understand this poetic professional development project.

Three U.S. writing project teachers from Louisiana, Missouri, and North Dakota reflect on their experiences with the National Writing Project’s writing marathon and discuss their collaboration to design, implement, and study a virtual writing marathon during the coronavirus pandemic. Interspersed with teachers’ writing from the marathon, the piece explains the features of the design and ends with four primary conclusions: 1) Writing should be at the center of our pedagogy, 2) A writing marathon can and should be adapted for online spaces, 3) Virtual writing marathons have lasting value, and 4) The success of the Virtual Writing Marathon rests on National Writing Project infrastructure and culture.

With an apartheid of diverse children and young adult books, as well as the dearth of rich, personalized writing opportunities in schools, the National Writing Project Director of National Programs and the Director of the Connecticut Writing Project at Fairfield University asked, ‘How might authors and teachers be brought together during the pandemic to discuss writing processes and books?’ The Write Time resulted, a digital podcast for educators, writers, young people, and families that showcases authors of children’s and young adult literature.

This reflective article discusses lessons learned when Reading Landscapes & Writing Nature, an annual collaboration between a National Writing Project site and Weir Farm National Historical Park, migrated online in 2020 as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The organizations have used critical pedagogies of place (Gruenewald, 2003) since 2017 to guide teacher writing workshops, and reimagined the professional development in digital spaces with multimodal literacies (Kinloch, 2009; Kress, 2003). This including 360 photospheres and Padlet as tools to expand educators’ understandings of literacy, wellness, and place.

In this invited guest editorial, Elyse Eidman-Aadahl calls for listening to teachers, especially those who teach writing and learned to adapt curriculum to meet the needs of others during the 2020 Covid pandemic.

The spring and summer of 2020 were rife with tension emanating from hate speech, racial violence, and a global health pandemic. Educators deliberated over the uncertainties of equitable access to learning, healthcare, and wellbeing. This article will describe how the Red Mountain Writing Project created a third space (Gutierrez, 2008) grounded by Critical Race Theory (CRT) in education (Solorzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001) and Historically Responsive Literacy (Muhammad, 2020) to center the lives of teachers, their experiences, and their stories during a tumultuous time. The authors will share how they built and maintained a supportive virtual space for teachers to critically examine and reflect on their lived experiences, social awareness, sense of agency, and anti-racist teaching and writing practices. Now, after more than two years, teacher-writer communities are especially needed – third spaces where teachers from diverse backgrounds can hold space together and engage in writing to heal, find joy, empathize, and amplify their experiential knowledges.

This online antiracist program for children as young as 3 and their parents/caregivers took place in June of 2020 early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Driven by a desire to build change in opposition to racism and unite families during a time of quarantine and isolation, the program fuses family literacy practices to create space for discussions surrounding race, racism, anti-racism and alliance. The model of the program uses children’s literature to make difficult topics accessible to young children, and provides literacy activities which are engaging, age appropriate, and adaptable to materials at hand, interests, abilities and attention spans of each child. This success of this program demonstrates the power of the model to engage with young children and issues of social justice.

This piece reflects on a secondary teacher’s attempt to empower her students during the Covid Pandemic crisis schooling response in the United States. In this article, the students engage with their hybrid identities and lived experiences to build skills and criticality toward cultivating the changemaker within themselves. Selections of student testimony and the reflexive practices of the teacher are centered in the explanation of a project rooted in Culturally and Historically Responsive literacy.

In this reflective article, a case study, we draw upon scholarship on a critical friendship (Schuck & Russell, 2005; Silva, 2003) that grew in 2020 as we worked to assist one another in creating NWP writing programs for teachers and youth. At the heart of our professional collaboration was our desire to maintain and cultivate community engagement (Deans, Roswell, & Wurr, 2010; Preece, 2017), while advancing racial literacies in digital spaces (Price-Dennis & Sealey-Ruiz, 2021) and as we worked with a framework for instructional equity (Muhammad, 2020). Weekly meetings led us to using Padlet for 189 hours of professional development, 9 programs with 511 youth, and 7 courses with 320 students. Padlet became a location for curation, especially as we worked to promote diverse, inclusive children’s and young adult texts as models for classroom teacher and student writers.

Writing support is one facet of doctoral education with implications on student retention, persistence, and completion. Previous research suggests focus has been given to undergraduate writing, while little attention has been paid to support graduate writing overall and even less at the doctoral level (Rose & McClafferty, 2001). After observing student struggles with doctoral-level academic writing, members of the faculty determined a need to better support writing development from coursework through the final dissertation in an online Global Leadership PhD program. In this article, we describe the development and implementation of a multi-day, interactive, and synchronous online writing workshop collaboratively offered by faculty and staff to address challenges experienced by pre-dissertation students, as well as those in the dissertation stage of the program. Students had demonstrated a wide variety of challenges, including trouble writing using conventional standards, difficulty organizing their thoughts, understanding and applying appropriate APA formatting, and minor proofreading errors in their writing. These challenges are often exacerbated by differences in priorities from instructors, creating confusion for the student on how to best address these challenges and become more proficient in their writing. Following a description of the practice, we include a discussion on student evaluations of the workshop and make recommendations for the application of similar support initiatives.

Beyond Fitting In: Rethinking First Generation Writing and Literacy Education Kelly Ritter (Ed.). Modern Language Association, New York (2023). 352 pp. $49.00, ISBN: 978-1-60329-603-8 (pbk) $105.00, ISBN: 978-1-60329-602-1 (hbk)

This qualitative study explores how writing is conceptualised by teachers within the context of the primary National Curriculum and statutory writing assessment in England. The 10 participating teachers were drawn from nine primary schools and were interviewed about writing and writing assessment in year 6. Ivanic’s discourses of writing were used as the basis of a thematic analysis framework, which focussed on teachers’ perspectives and opinions. Findings showed that reference to the creative and skills discourses were most dominant within the teachers’ viewpoints; however, they also showed alignment to other discourses. Many of the teachers’ views were at odds with the National Curriculum and statutory writing assessment and this is discussed in relation to the tensions and conflict this created in pedagogy, attitudes, and assessment.

This study explores teacher perspectives and beliefs on writing instruction in the Swedish Language Introduction Program (LI) through interviews with six teachers in Swedish as a second language. The study was guided by the following research questions: How do the teachers construct the students discursively, including the students’ educational background and prior knowledge? How do the teachers frame writing instruction, as evident by their discourses? LI is an upper secondary school program framed for newly arrived students, 15 to 18 years old, who need to qualify for mainstream programs by attaining the goals of compulsory school year 9. The study is framed within theory on second language writing instruction and teachers’ beliefs. The teachers’ discourses of writing instruction were analyzed against theory on second language writing instruction, genre pedagogy, and practices of care, and related to the teachers’ discursive constructions of the group of students as vulnerable and heterogeneous. All teachers exploited genre pedagogy, with its emancipatory aims, to enable access to the genres of schooling. The teachers’ expressed aims were directed toward long-term goals, such as employability and democratic participation. The teachers were firmly based in both theory and experience, which the demanding context seemed to require. In spite of indisputable challenges, the teachers conveyed a sense of belief in the possibilities of teaching.

This paper reconsiders the common use of mind maps as only a brainstorming tool that occurs before writing. The paper contemplates how mind mapping can be a useful pedagogical strategy throughout the writing process, not just at the beginning. The metacognitive benefits of mind mapping can support writers at all stages of their writing. Mind mapping can make their thinking overt and allow writers to make new connections throughout their revisions. The paper draws on an intrinsic case study (Stake, 2005) of sixteen first-year writing students who used mind maps at the beginning of their research papers and again as they grappled with feedback to re-design their drafts for submission. Students reported that, while the initial mind map had limited benefits on their writing, the second mind map acted as a vehicle for them to make connections between their draft, their feedback, and their next steps as writers. This second map offered a liminal space in which students could dwell with their feedback, make their thinking visible, and strategize how they could implement that feedback to make their writing stronger. The paper offers a new look at how teachers can use mind mapping to enhance students’ writing processes.

This article draws on Toulmin’s model of argumentation to propose a way of engaging with controversial topics in ways that require not only the assertion of a point of view, but attentive listening to contrasting beliefs. Given the paucity of models of respectful listening in public discourse, school becomes a place where teachers can provide opportunities for contentious discussions to be conducted through civic discourse. The article begins with an outline of Toulmin’s model, with an emphasis on warranting examples so that they serve as evidence for a claim, and engages with opposing viewpoints for a reasoned rebuttal and synthesis. The article then suggests that the topic of school dress codes would be a fruitful topic of student inquiry and argumentation, given the ideological basis of a dress code and the many differences of opinion surrounding them. Such instruction is illustrated through a method that relies on inductive reasoning and discussion as the basis for generating ideas in argumentative writing. The article concludes with a view of writing pedagogy that promotes responsible argumentation in light of critical responses that lead to a synthesis and extension of learning.

While much of the work on increasing diversity of U.S. schools has focused on urban and suburban contexts, rural schools and communities have seen an influx of multilingual immigrant and migrant students. Using qualitative data collected in English classrooms at two different rural high schools as part of a larger study, this article profiles two rural ELA teachers who stood out as unique supporters of their multilingual students’ literacy development. These profiles are contextualized in broader debates in writing studies about valuating language diversity and avoiding form-based approaches in instruction. In concluding comments, the author explores how these teachers don’t neatly fit categorizations of effective writing teachers and argues that writing researchers need to work across increasingly polarized divides to help make rural schools more inclusive spaces for linguistically diverse students.

Given the rise in business and technical writing (BTW) courses in writing programs and English departments, there is a need to develop not only a pedagogy for BTW but one that considers BTW’s institutional context. Context is a problematic focus for pedagogy, as we have seen in recent scholarship on student writing, theory of genre, and transferability of skills to other academic disciplines. That scholarship views the uncertain and unclear contexts of academic composition courses and their genres as preventing the full student understanding of genre that is needed for students to develop transferable writing skills. The continuation of that scholarship into BTW regards the instruction of BTW, as inside academia rather than within the workplace, as suffering from similar concerns with context. Rather than viewing BTW as downstream from or supplemental to composition instruction, this article argues that we should examine the genres of BTW as unique in their contingency to the writing process and yet just as able to pursue the goals of composition instruction and liberal arts education as first-year composition (FYC) courses. By focusing on the reader of BTW genres as determinant in the contingency of the writing situation, we see BTW as less problematic than FYC in its support of key composition goals such as the creation of original arguments and effective management of supporting materials. The awareness of readership and argumentation allows for a pedagogy supportive of contingent and part-time faculty as well as full-time composition faculty regardless of their respective professional experience.

Bullshit, as defined by Frankfurt (2005, p. 10), is language that is “disconnected from a concern for the truth.” Much scholarship shows that bullshit is a prominent feature in organizations that is difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of (e.g., McCarthy et al., 2020; Penny, 2010). Bullshit, by definition and by cultural practice, seems antithetical to business writing orthodoxy. As Thill and Bovée (2020) suggest in a representative textbook, communication should be clear and ethical. However, Spicer (2020) codifies bullshit as a social practice whose outcomes are not always dire. Well-crafted bullshit benefits its users, allowing them to “fit into a speech community, get things done in day-to-day interaction and bolster their image and identity” (Spicer, 2020, p. 20). Contrasting with business writing’s abstinence-only bullshit stance, this suggests that successful writers must adapt to their organization’s speech act practices. In this article, we argue that students must be taught about bullshit. After describing bullshit and its role in organizations, we show how business writing could incorporate a critically informed approach to bullshit in undergraduate courses, internship preparation courses, and other curricular instances in which students work directly with organizations. While bullshitting should not be outright encouraged, continued ignorance will do nothing to solve its associated problems. Promoting bullshit literacy, however, could both minimize bullshit’s harms and maximize its benefits. We close by describing how this approach could foster critical thinking skills, promote more seamless adaptation to organizational cultures and communication practices, and perhaps even improve mental health outcomes.

Significant research has been conducted in the past several decades on best practices in providing feedback to students’ writing. Over the past two decades, feedback methods have evolved as writing classes have transitioned from face-to-face traditional classrooms to online classrooms and as technology has advanced. Written feedback has moved from handwritten notes in the margins of a paper to typed feedback using commenting tools. Audio feedback has gone from the cassette tape to the MP3 file. One of the most recent trends in feedback to students’ writing is in video form using screencasting technology. Video feedback through screencasting is especially beneficial in the technical writing classroom, where students often need to see the problems in their document. Students often benefit from seeing why they need more white space, why their graphics are not clear, why their alignment is off, why their instructions are not precise for their audience, why their numbered steps are not developed correctly, and why a host of other design principles could be improved. Moreover, video feedback through screencasting technology is becoming more popular in the workplace. Exposing students in technical writing classes to screencasting feedback has the potential not only to improve their writing but also to enhance their readiness for the workplace.

The idea that engineers are graduating without the necessary communication skills, specifically written communication, is not new. In the past 25 years, changes have been made both in accreditation requirements and in engineering program curriculums to work to improve students’ writing skills and make their writing better align with the needs of industry, and research is emerging that considers industry standards and how those standards can be applied to the classroom. One challenge is that the characteristics of quality writing are not always the same for the industry and the classroom, which can create problems for new graduates entering the workforce. This article looks at how effective writing is defined by both academics and professional engineers. Drawing on a study by Cunningham & Stewart (2012), which researched the criteria professional engineers consider essential in effective writing, this article provides the results of a survey of instructors of introductory professional and technical writing classes. The survey was designed to determine the characteristics the instructors use when grading writing assignments. The results are then compared to the characteristics of quality writing as identified by the engineers. In addition, the article reviews assessment rubrics to identify criteria used when evaluating writing and compares these criteria to the qualities of effective writing as determined by the Analytic Writing Continuum, part of the National Writing Project. After determining gaps between industry and academics, the article considers ways to bridge those gaps, including working with professional engineers to obtain sample documents, increasing reading and evaluation of engineering documents in professional and technical writing classes, and using interdisciplinary approaches to course design and instruction.

Concerns about teaching structured authoring, which is the use of software in technical writing to allow automatic textual reuse and reassembly, have been woven into the debate about what role technologies should play in preparing technical writing students for ‘real world’ needs since the late 1990s (see Brumberger & Laurer, 2015; Carnegie & Crane, 2019; Kimball, 2015; Rainey et al., 2018). Vee (2017) and others have argued that fundamental aspects of writing software code, many of which parallel structured authoring, are now required literacies. Indeed, as Gentle (2017) demonstrates, the difference between those writing code and those writing structured authoring continues to shrink. Helping to develop technical writers to understand this overlap remains a significant challenge. This article suggests that this challenge might be met by using an open-source interactive fiction authoring platform called Twine, which provides many of the building blocks of structured authoring while teaching fundamental aspects of coding. However, this approach is not without its perils. Through analyzing the findings of a two-year study, this article identifies potential avenues for success as well as potential pitfalls to be mindfully considered.

Ahrndt, Shannon. Intercultural Communication. (St. Louis, MO: Open Education Resource Collection, University of Missouri – St. Louis, 2020), 119pp. Open access e-book. https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=oer

In view of the limited research attention so far given to the developing cognition of novice L2 writing teachers, this qualitative study examines the extent to which L2 writing teacher cognition can be enhanced by the experience of tutoring. By adopting the theory of experiential learning, the study considered the role that the experience of tutoring could play in the development of novice L2 writing teachers’ conceptualizations of learners’ needs and their view of themselves as developing L2 writing teachers. The results of this study point to the participants as having all made realizations that served as catalysts for continued growth after the original tutoring experiences. These findings indicate that the practice of tutoring changed their perceptions of teaching L2 writing by seeing clearly the benefits of dialogic interaction with L2 writers and also learning the value of holistically viewing the writer.

This reflection focuses on teaching writing online for the first-year students in the Academic English course at the Westminster International University in Tashkent (WIUT), Uzbekistan. Academic English is a core course for all incoming first-year students and aims to develop students’ proficiency in listening, reading, and writing skills. A great emphasis is placed on the development of writing skills, and students are required to write at least four summaries, two essays, and one reflection during the twelve weeks of the first semester. A new challenging component in the autumn 2020 semester was teaching writing online, due to the lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The classroom writing processes were examined through the lens of the Self- and Socially-Regulated Multilingual Writing model (Akhmedjanova, 2020), which revealed prevalence of socially-regulated rather than self-regulated writing practices. Also, teachers instructed students to use revision strategies more than planning and formulating writing strategies. A cursory examination of students’ reflections suggested that many students struggled with the environment and time management skills. Future revisions to the Academic English course should include explicit teaching of planning and formulating writing strategies along with planning and time management skills.

Teaching and Learning Writing in ESL/EFL. Rachael Ruegg. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing (2021). × + 177 Pp., ¥28.00, ISBN: 978-7-5213-2455-6 (pbk)