• The informality of video essay narration engendered ideation in drafting and script writing for students. • Students felt more responsible and personally invested in their arguments when they narrated and dramatized them in the video making process. • While students admitted that they tended to “gloss over” written drafts when revising, the video making process prompted students to be more self-motivated in the revising process, enabling them to evaluate and develop their arguments. • Unlike oral presentations, as students viewed their video essays as audience members, they could more clearly discern if their arguments lacked coherence or depth. This self-evaluation resulted in students taking the initiative to revise their final written assignments. Although multimodal assignments have increasingly been incorporated into academic writing curricula, research into their impact on student writing remains limited. This study, conducted at a Singaporean university, required students to transform a written essay draft into a video essay and then revise their draft into a written essay assignment. By comparing students’ initial drafts and their final submissions, and analysing interviews and reflective journals, we identified significant benefits stemming from the transmediation between written and multimodal text. Specifically, we found that 1) transmediation enabled students to self-evaluate their writing as they repeatedly listened to their voiceovers, found concrete visuals to illustrate their ideas, and edited their work to fit the concise video format; 2) students broke with habitual, less useful revision practices as they were freed from the conventional and grammatical concerns of written academic text and narrated their arguments colloquially in their voiceovers; 3) students exhibited an improved awareness of audience and medium; and 4) students were more enthusiastic with the course due to the novelty of the multimodal assignment. These findings suggest that including a video essay assignment during the drafting process can serve as an effective tool in advancing students’ abilities to evaluate their own academic writing.

In this article, I provide a chronological narrative to my ungrading choices in composition classes as a neurodiverse single mother from a working-class background. I discuss my positionality as a White person committed to justice and my experiences as an “assessment killjoy” (West-Puckett et al.) during the ethical turn in writing studies. From this foundation, I reflect on my attempts to grade more equitably. I discuss my pedagogical goals, which are grounded in intersectional feminist theory (hooks; Royster and Kirsch), standpoint theory (Harding), learning sciences (Hammond; Ross), and a robust model of the writing construct (White et al.), and analyze the consequences of exit portfolios, labor-based contract grading (Inoue), and specifications grading (Nilson) via this integrated framework.

This article considers recent trends in developmental education and analyzes disaggregated student data, exploring the extent to which developmental education reform of corequisite instruction affected access of one community college’s students to a first-semester composition course. By examining student access and student success across two distinct semesters, before and after extensive developmental education reform, the article presents an approach to deep assessment that is necessary for English departments at community colleges as they analyze and adjust to specific reforms.

The aim of this article was twofold: first, to introduce a design for a writing test intended for application in large-scale assessments of writing, and second, to experimentally examine the effects of employing a device for activating prior knowledge of topic and genre as a means of controlling construct-irrelevant variance and enhancing validity. An authentic, situated writing task was devised, offering students a communicative purpose and a defined audience. Two devices were utilized for the cognitive activation of topic and genre knowledge: an infographic and a genre model. The participants in this study were 162 fifth-grade students from Santiago de Chile, with 78 students assigned to the experimental condition (with activation device) and 84 students assigned to the control condition (without activation device). The results demonstrate that the odds of presenting good writing ability are higher for students who were part of the experimental group, even when controlling for text transcription ability, considered a predictor of writing. These findings hold implications for the development of large-scale tests of writing guided by principles of educational and social justice. • Genre and topic knowledge are forms of prior knowledge relevant to writing. • Higher odds for better writing in students exposed to prior knowledge activation. • Results support use of prior knowledge activation in standardized assessment.

Integrated tasks are often used in higher education (HE) for diagnostic purposes, with increasing popularity in lingua franca contexts, such as German HE, where English-medium courses are gaining ground. In this context, we report the validation of a new rating scale for assessing reading-into-writing tasks. To examine scoring validity, we employed Weir’s (2005) socio-cognitive framework in an explanatory mixed-methods design. We collected 679 integrated performances in four summary and opinion tasks, which were rated by six trained student raters. They are to become writing tutors for first-year students. We utilized a many-facet Rasch model to investigate rater severity, reliability, consistency, and scale functioning. Using thematic analysis, we analyzed think-aloud protocols, retrospective and focus group interviews with the raters. Findings showed that the rating scale overall functions as intended and is perceived by the raters as valid operationalization of the integrated construct. FACETS analyses revealed reasonable reliabilities, yet exposed local issues with certain criteria and band levels. This is corroborated by the challenges reported by the raters, which they mainly attributed to the complexities inherent in such an assessment. Applying Weir’s (2005) framework in a mixed-methods approach facilitated the interpretation of the quantitative findings and yielded insights into potential validity threads. • FACET analyses show reasonable reliabilities and scale functioning. • Mixed-methods approach facilitates interpreting the quantitative findings. • Raters perceive rating scale as valid operationalization of integrated construct. • Applying Weir’s socio-cognitive framework reveals potential validity threads. • Raters attribute challenges to the complexities inherent in integrated writing.

In writing assessment, there is inherently a tension between authenticity and practicality: tasks with longer durations may more closely reflect real-life writing processes but are less feasible to administer and score. What is more, given total testing time, there is necessarily a trade-off between task duration and number of tasks. Traditionally, high-stakes assessments have managed this trade-off by administering one or two writing tasks each test, allowing 20–40 minutes per task. However, research on second language (L2) English writing has not found longer task durations to significantly improve score validity or reliability. Importantly, very few studies have compared much shorter durations for writing tasks to more traditional allotments. To explore this issue, we asked adult L2-English test takers to respond to two writing prompts with either 5-minute or 20-minute time limits. Responses were then evaluated by expert human raters and an automated writing evaluation tool. Regardless of scoring method, short duration scores evidenced equally high test-retest reliability and criterion validity as long duration scores. As expected, longer task duration yielded higher scores, but regardless of duration, test takers demonstrated the entire spectrum of writing proficiency. Implications for writing assessment are discussed in relation to scoring practices and task design. • Longer writing tasks do not have higher test-retest reliability than shorter ones. • Longer writing tasks do not have higher criterion validity than shorter ones. • The impact of task duration is not mediated by scoring method (human or machine).

Abstract This article focuses on student perceptions of their experiences in an ungraded classroom that uses engagement-based grading contracts (EBGCs). The assessment ecology is described in detail, and then the author shares student reflections on their experiences with EBGCs, which were collected in the form of an end-of-semester memo assignment. Comprehensively, students find EBGC use to be a positive and worthwhile assessment experience. While there is a learning curve involved, students appreciate the real-life approach to both labor and engagement on writing tasks, the amount of agency and choice built into the contract, and the ecology's incorporation of extensive written feedback in lieu of scores or points. Another key takeaway is its positive impact on student affect — especially in instances of students self-disclosing diagnoses of anxiety. Student-reported challenges to EBGC use are also discussed, including their own wrestling with ideas about past experiences with traditional grading, personal levels of motivation, and accountability. Overall, an engagement-based grading contract approach appears to be a pleasurable and accessible assessment option for teachers looking to pursue an ungraded approach in their writing classrooms.

Aaron Bruenger (he/they) is a senior lecturer at the University of Minnesota Rochester where he teaches writing and communication courses. He is interested in rhetorical criticism and theory, multimodal literacy and composition, and relational pedagogy.Ellen C. Carillo (she/her) is professor of English at the University of Connecticut and the writing coordinator at its Waterbury campus. She is the author of Securing a Place for Reading in Composition: The Importance of Teaching for Transfer (2014), Teaching Readers in Post-Truth America (2018), and The Hidden Inequities in Labor-Based Contract Grading (2021). Ellen is also the editor or coeditor of several textbooks, handbooks, and collections.Esther M. Gabay (she/her) is a PhD student at The Ohio State University, focusing on writing, literacy, disability studies, and writing assessment. She has over a decade of experience teaching first-year writing in the two-year college, and was a collaborative member of the Faculty Initiative of Teaching Reading at Kingsborough Community College. Esther has published articles in TETYC and has chapters in the forthcoming edited collections What Is College-Level Writing (vol. 3) and College Teachers Teaching Reading: Practical Strategies for Supporting Postsecondary Readers.Catherine Gabor (she/her) is professor of rhetoric and acting associate dean for the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of San Francisco. Her professional interests are digital authorship, the scholarship of administration, and ungrading. Her work appears in the Journal of Writing Program Administration, Reflections: Writing, Service-Learning, and Community Literacy, the Journal of Basic Writing, and several edited collections.Kara K. Larson (she/her) is an assistant professor of English at Hillsborough Community College–SouthShore, Florida. She was a Conference on College Composition and Communication Scholars for the Dream Award recipient in 2021. A former middle school English language arts and reading teacher for ESL students, Kara has enjoyed taking learner-centered engagement and collaborative learning strategies into the college classroom.Bronson Lemer (he/him) is a senior lecturer at the University of Minnesota Rochester. He is the author of The Last Deployment: How a Gay, Hammer-Swinging Twentysomething Survived a Year in Iraq (2011). He is a 2019 McKnight Writing Fellow and lives in St. Paul.Jessica Nastal (she/they) is assistant professor of English at College of DuPage. With Mya Poe and Christie Toth, her edited collection Writing Placement in Two-Year Colleges: The Pursuit of Equity in Postsecondary Education won the CWPA Best Book Award for 2022. Jessica serves on the editorial boards of Assessing Writing, Teaching English in the Two-Year College, and Composition Studies.Katherine Daily O'Meara (she/her) is assistant professor of English and director of Writing across the Curriculum at St. Norbert College. Her work has been published in the Journal of Response to Writing, The WAC Journal, and multiple edited collections. Kat's current research focuses on accessible assessment and contract grading, student self-placement, equitable/antiracist pedagogies, WAC/WID, and writing program administration.Cheryl Hogue Smith (she/her) is a professor of English, WRAC coordinator, and liberal arts coordinator at Kingsborough Community College, CUNY. She is a past chair of the Two-Year College English Association (TYCA) and a Fellow of the National Writing Project. Her work appears in TETYC, JBW, JAAL, English Journal, JTW, and in several edited collections.Jesse Stommel (he/him) is a faculty member in the Writing Program at University of Denver. He is also cofounder of Hybrid Pedagogy: the journal of critical digital pedagogy and Digital Pedagogy Lab. He has a PhD from University of Colorado Boulder. He is author of Undoing the Grade: Why We Grade, and How to Stop (2023) and coauthor of An Urgency of Teachers: The Work of Critical Digital Pedagogy (2018).Molly E. Ubbesen (she/they) is assistant professor and director of Writing at University of Minnesota Rochester. She applies critical disability studies to writing studies to support accessible and effective teaching and learning. Her work has been published in Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy and Composition Forum. Additionally, she is an editor for the forthcoming collection Disability, Access, and the Teaching of Writing.Megan K. Von Bergen (she/her) is an assistant professor of English at Murray State University, where she teaches first-year and upper-division composition courses. She is interested in inclusive, student-centered assessment practices and the programmatic structures needed to support them. Her work has appeared in Composition Studies and enculturation. In her spare time, she likes running (really) long distances.Griffin Xander Zimmerman (they/he) recently graduated with a PhD in rhetoric, composition, and the teaching of English from University of Arizona. Griffin's work appears in the Journal of Writing Assessment and the Journal of Multimodal Rhetorics. An interdisciplinary disability scholar, Griffin focuses his work on pedagogical approaches to neurodiversity, teacher training, disability rhetorics, and relationality through communities of care.

Abstract The word ungrading means raising an eyebrow at grades as a systemic practice, distinct from simply not grading. The word is a present participle, an ongoing process, not a static set of practices. Too many approaches to grades treat students as if they are interchangeable and fail to recognize their complexity. Educational institutions need to start by rewriting policies and imagining new ways forward for the most marginalized students. This essay examines contemporary approaches to assessment; considers the history of grades; interrogates the bias inherent in standardized systems; and explores methods and approaches for designing assessments that push back against traditional notions of grading.

Abstract Much of the conversation about ungrading has thus far focused on its impacts in the classroom, improving student learning and addressing ongoing inequities. Yet addressing the administrative structures necessary to sustain ungrading is equally important, especially considering the labor conditions of contingent, minoritized, or otherwise vulnerable faculty. This article proposes hostile/hospitable programmatic architectures as a framework for understanding how institutional ecologies may be configured in ways that undermine or support the use of equitable assessment practices. Where hostile programmatic architecture neglects the risk vulnerable faculty take on in using a new assessment practice, a hospitable programmatic architecture, deliberately attentive to faculty labor conditions and institutional locatedness, relies on supportive, cross-hierarchical relationships and ample material and affective resources to open institutional spaces for the effective use of ungrading. The article closes with a brief heuristic for writing program administrators and other departmental/university leaders interested in assessing the hospitality of their own program.

Abstract This article explores the impact of labor-based grading contracts on student attitudes and perceptions within multilingual First-Year Composition (FYC) sections at an R1 university. Data collected qualitatively and quantitatively examined correlations between labor-based grading contracts and shifts in student attitudes toward writing and overall learning experiences. Findings revealed that some students found labor-based grading contracts motivating, leading to improved attitudes toward writing, while others found themselves demotivated or stressed by the absence of traditional grades. The concept of fairness emerged as a key concern, challenging the assumption that labor-based grading contracts universally benefit students. This article underscores the need for nuanced implementation of labor-based grading contracts and encourages a student-centered approach to foster equitable and antiracist writing assessment practices. It acknowledges the potential benefits of labor-based contract grading, but also its associated challenges, and calls for a critical examination of grading contracts within local contexts to ensure they genuinely advance opportunities for underrepresented students.

Abstract At the University of Minnesota, Rochester, a small health sciences school, writing faculty piloted their own versions of ungrading catered to the accessibility needs of students. Ubbesen experimented with what she calls “credit-based assessment” where students receive a zero through four score on all assignments. Bruenger experimented with assigning credit or no credit to all assignments. And Lemer experimented with not assigning grades at all until the final required one. This article describes these ungrading schemes, analyzes student responses to them, and promotes ungrading as an accessible practice for teachers and learners.

Abstract While ungrading is gaining traction within higher education, many teachers still struggle with applying ungrading systems successfully in their classrooms. This article is designed to bridge the gap between an ideological commitment to ungrading and pedagogical praxis by focusing on the ideologies that are embedded in ungrading systems. This represents an important shift from the focus on tools or methods to a focus on the habits of mind necessary to adapt ungrading to individual classrooms. This article claims that one of the key challenges to implementing ungrading stems from attempting to tack alternative assessment onto existing pedagogical frameworks. By utilizing a disability justice approach, the author offers a praxis-based primer to support educators in shifting their habits of mind to facilitate ungrading. First, the article asks readers to examine their ideological assumptions surrounding classrooms and demonstrates how these ideologies influence and interact with ungrading principles. Next, the article explores how a disability justice framework provides important contextualizing guidance to enacting ungrading ideologies. Finally, it synthesizes key lessons from disability justice theory and localizes them in examples of classroom praxis, demonstrating how a reorientation away from a “best practices” approach to ungrading facilitates successful implementation in the classroom.

Since its release in late 2022, ChatGPT and subsequent generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools have raised a wide variety of questions and concerns for the field of technical communication: How will these tools be incorporated into professional settings? How might we appropriately integrate these tools into our research and teaching? In this review, we examine research published in 2023–2024 addressing these questions ( N = 28). Overall, we find preliminary evidence that GAI tools can positively impact student writing and assessment; they also have the potential to assist with some aspects of academic and medical research and writing. However, there are concerns about their reliability and the ethical conundrums raised when they are used inappropriately or when their outputs cannot be distinguished from humans. More research is needed for evidence-based teaching and research strategies as well as policies guiding ethical use. We offer suggestions for new research avenues and methods.

In this work, we explore the use of digital technologies and statistical analysis to monitor how Italian secondary school students’ writing changes over time and how comparisons can be made across different high school types. We analyzed more than 2,000 exam essays written by Italian high school students over 13 years and in five different school types. Four indicators of writing characteristics were considered—text length, text complexity, and two indicators of source use, all extracted using natural language processing tools—which provided insights into students’ citation practices over time and in different school contexts. In particular, we measured the portion of students’ essays that included text from source material as well as the amount of copied text that was not properly referenced. We found that student essays became shorter in length over time while also getting more complex. We also found that the tendency to copy uncited text in the essay decreased. High school curricula predict different writing strategies: essays written by students attending scientific and humanistic high schools are longer and less subject to incorrect citations. We argue that such text analysis enables the study of writing features in high school classes and supports the evaluation of curricula.

Background: The bulk of international trade has led to increasing demand for specialized professional communication texts in multilingual contexts. Persuasive language is required in promotional discourse to sell products. When transactions are carried out with foreign countries, translation becomes essential for successful commercial exchange. Literature review: Persuasion requires the use of positive evaluation to describe products. This article addresses the need to contrast the expression of positive evaluation in English and Spanish online promotional cheese descriptions. Research questions: 1. What are the linguistic resources used to express positive evaluation in English and Spanish in online promotional texts of the cheese industry? 2. What is the distribution across parts of speech and semantic categories and subcategories between these two languages? 3. How can semantic tags in bilingual comparable corpora provide useful information for translation practice? Methodology: Empirical data have been extracted from Online Cheese Descriptions (OCD), a semantically tagged English-Spanish corpus, and classified using the Appraisal Framework into the subcategories of appreciation, judgment, affect, and graduation. Results and discussion: Tests of statistical significance have revealed cross-linguistic differences, mainly in appreciation, thus leading to a qualitative analysis. The findings also include a large inventory of all evaluative items that express appreciation for cheeses in both languages and general guidelines for translators. Conclusions: This multilayer corpus-based analysis has yielded relevant data that can be used to enhance the second-language writing and translation processes required for marketing cheese in English and Spanish, thus supporting international professionals in their communication in multilingual contexts.

Introduction: Graduates with master's degrees in Translation and Interpreting (MTI) are an important workforce in technical communication. To meet this need, we examined the pedagogy of trans-writing to better integrate technical communication (TC) into translation programs. This teaching case from two Chinese universities discusses the curriculum design, its implementation, and teaching effectiveness. Situating the case: While an increasing number of universities in China are interested in embedding TC courses into their translation programs, no research-backed effective solution has been identified. About the case: To boost the employability of MTI students, we designed the courses as “user-centered trans-writing with global content,” which features trans-writing as a strategy for global content creation, user research as the core learning task, and team projects as the primary form of engagement. Methods: We used a mixed method of interviews and surveys to investigate the course effectiveness, each targeting different groups of stakeholders. Results: We synthesized a competence framework for trans-writers based on interviews, which showed that graduates (who work as trans-writers) and their employers prioritized language/culture, user-centered mindset, and cooperation as core competencies. A survey focusing on other graduates who took our courses but did not become trans-writers also revealed positive learning outcomes, including expanded professional visions and enhanced skills in user awareness, project management, collaboration, and communication. Conclusion: The trans-writing approach is effective in equipping MTI students with the necessary competencies for global technical communication.

This article presents a conceptual framework for integrating AI-enabled business communication in higher education. Drawing on established theories from business communication and educational technology, the framework provides comprehensive guidance for designing engaging learning experiences. It emphasizes the significance of social presence, cognitive load management, and constructivist learning principles. The framework is exemplified through various tasks, including role-playing with AI chatbots, analyzing nonverbal cues, communication simulations, interactive presentation assessments, and collaborative AI-supported projects. Practical considerations for implementation, including technological infrastructure, faculty training, ethics, curriculum integration, and assessment strategies, are discussed. Future directions and implications for business communication education are also explored.

Despite scholarly alignments between user experience (UX) principles and contract grading, further accounts and studies of grading in UX courses are needed. My self-study of a UX course found that labor-based contract grading helped de-center instructor and peer evaluation and foreground user, client, and stakeholder priorities in community-engaged work, and that it supported engagement in a process of connected UX activities. However, I was also challenged to accommodate flexible UX processes and develop a course engagement model that maximized access to UX process opportunities. I conclude with a heuristic to guide the design of grading models for UX courses.

When we offer students engagement in the creation of the course, not only do we acknowledge that those in culturally minoritized positions are adept at deploying the same skills we seek to teach, but also we show that their lived experiences are valuable, necessary, and desirable within the classroom. This recognition opens a space in which students not only feel a sense of belonging but also create the terms of belonging. This article shares an evolving five-year and running process and offers an overview of how a community-based assessment practice grew from adapting (with students) labor-based grading coupled with self-directed writing.

This symposium documents an ongoing conversation between five faculty members from Portland Community College. The discussion explores what “equity-based assessment” means, grappling both with the reasons for adopting such approaches as contract grading, labor-based grading, and ungrading and with the challenges of implementing them in two-year colleges.

This Instructional Note is for two-year college instructors who have attended conference presentations and read articles about the benefits of ungrading and want to know more about the pragmatics of teaching and how the shift to alternative assessment will affect their work.

In this special issue introduction about alternative grading practices, we argue that stories from two-year colleges and other underrepresented institutions matter. As our title suggests, this special issue is an attempt to recognize the unrecognized and disrupt the dominant alternative assessment narrative. To meet the needs of all students, especially those whose journeys include two-year colleges, the field must find ways to elevate faculty voices from community colleges, technical colleges, and vocational colleges in conversations about pedagogical innovations, including grading.

Introducing an alternative grading framework to students can be a challenge. Instructors might encounter student resistance, confusion, and frustration. To better help students understand both why moving away from traditional grading practices is important and how the classroom’s alternative assessment system functions, this Instructional Note suggests centering dialogue, students’ histories with grades, and an overview of the classroom’s alternative grading practice during the first couple of weeks of class.

This article explores the connections between creating an equitable classroom and antiracist assessment. The article attempts to explain the impact of the equitable classroom on student apathy. Additionally, rigid concepts of “failing” under this equitable classroom model are interrogated. Finally, the article provides some insights into the limitations and pitfalls of the equitable classroom design.

As national parks saw a significant uptick in traffic during the COVID-19 pandemic, so too has scholarly attention to these public symbols increased. The Enjoyment of the People: The Creation of National Identity in American Public Lands by Mary E. Stuckey offers a complex understanding of how America's national parks and public lands do “political work” (22). By evaluating how American presidents have rhetorically positioned public lands, Stuckey argues that these spaces invite specific discursive lenses to national identity, citizenship, patriotism, and stewardship. She interweaves criticism of presidential rhetoric with case studies of policies involving lands run by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS).For the Enjoyment of the People opens with the story of Mount Rushmore: land stolen from Indigenous peoples and quite literally carved up. Stuckey calls attention to this harm while noting that the NPS has been attempting (although not particularly well) to negotiate their harmful past actions by working with Indigenous people when interpreting the parks. This narrative sets the tone for the rest of the book, pointing “to the importance of rhetoric in understanding the nature and implications of these interpretive struggles” and positioning conflicts about identity—Indigenous identities especially but not exclusively—at the center (1). This book emphasizes how Indigenous voices are neglected within U.S. national narratives. Throughout For the Enjoyment of the People, Stuckey revisits conflicts surrounding Indigenous representation. She emphasizes the importance of using Indigenous-preferred names for places, despite each artifact's clear centering of white settler colonial perspectives. Overall, Stuckey's newest work leans on ideological analyses of American presidential rhetoric, interspersed with criticisms of discourse found within the spaces themselves, to illuminate how America's public lands discursively negotiate national identity. In doing so, Stuckey has crafted a thorough, thoughtful, and deliberately critical guidebook for rhetorical scholars and the American public generally to recognize how the nation's lands perpetuate certain American identities and values.Each chapter focuses on a different aspect of national identity as it is discursively manifested within American public lands. The first chapter explores the erasure of colonialism as seen in overseas national parks: the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa. In “Establishing National Origins: Erasure, Dispossession, and American Empire,” Stuckey discusses how time and space intersect to form explanations and accommodations of identity by examining how U.S. policies regulated Indigenous people and their lands. For instance, by grouping all Indigenous peoples together as “Indians,” white settler-colonists conflated space and time; they applied policies generally to vastly different Indigenous communities across decades despite their unique locales and histories. Political discourse erased Indigenous communities from their lands through erasure by discovery, entitlement, visibility, and interpretation. Stuckey weaves this history with two contemporary case studies. Colonialism is both erased and displayed in the U.S. Virgin Islands as the park is portrayed as scenic and economically beneficial. Colonialism is negotiated in American Samoa as the park is naturally wonderful and contains “pure culture worth preserving” (48). Stuckey presents a thoughtful evaluation of the NPS's interpretations, recognizing that their efforts to improve are “embedded in a colonialist web of historical and cultural interpretation from which it cannot be completely disentangled without foregrounding that colonial history” (42). The first chapter clearly depicts how American public lands were founded on colonial white supremacy and how these effects still resonate. This theme lingers with the reader for the remainder of the book.Chapter Two, “Claiming a National Past: Patriotism and Citizenship,” reveals how patriotism and citizenship are negotiated at Gettysburg National Historic Park, Gateway National Park (formerly known as Jefferson National Expansion Memorial), and Manzanar National Historic Site. Stuckey discusses how these become “places of considerable contestation over what constitutes American patriotism” (55). The chapter brings together theories about citizenship, rhetoric, place, and memory, evaluating how these memorial sites portray authenticity. Each example shows the complex discursive negotiation performed within and around places with shameful pasts, like Manzanar's Japanese American internment camp. At Manzanar, the NPS makes specific interpretive choices, such as whether to freeze oppression in the nation's past or encourage the visitors to relate with the victims.The third chapter asks how history is preserved and interpreted and narrated in NPS museums. Stuckey focuses the entirety of “Asserting a Singular National Narrative: Whose History and Whose Heritage?” on Mesa Verde National Park and on how its museum appropriates, displays, and memorializes antiquities. The evaluation of park museums is complemented by criticisms of the park's advertising, which portrays Mesa Verde—and thus both contemporary and ancient Indigenous peoples—as either primitive or romantic. The chapter concludes with critique of how the NPS interprets marginalized communities, arguing that the federal agency might be “doing better,” but their efforts also expose ongoing conflicts about recontextualizing national history and the accessibility of Indigenous cultures (114).Chapter Four, “Protecting Natural Resources: Citizen Stewards and the Nation's Future,” evaluates how the NPS's education and park management construct visitors as citizens and stewards of American lands. When evaluating Everglades National Park and the public lands of the California desert, Stuckey notes how the NPS educates through park interpretation and how the parks themselves are oriented to establish visitors as citizen stewards (119). As the first park to be set aside primarily for wildlife preservation, Everglades NP exemplifies the debate around what land deserves to be “preserved.” The discourse around the California Desert Protection Act shows how policies can affect American citizenship and stewardship of public lands. Finally, in “Measuring Value: Entitlement in the Land of Opportunity,” Stuckey considers Bears Ears National Monument and Alaskan public lands, noting how “public” lands are valued and their rightful ownership discursively assigned as entitlement. Stuckey links political decision making, land “ownership,” and citizenship through case studies. “Measuring Value” draws attention to the complicated debate around land value and entitlement.While For the Enjoyment of the People is far from the only scholarship about American public lands, its methodology sets it apart. Stuckey skillfully joins rhetorical criticism of presidential discourse about American public lands, evaluations of policy debates about expanding or reducing the lands, textual analysis of the NPS's interpretations of the lands, and rich descriptions of their historical contexts. Rooted in a political rhetorical tradition, this book spans disciplines in its methods and applications. Unlike recent works in rhetorical field methods, For the Enjoyment of the People is far more discursive than material in its approach to space. While this work contributes to the discipline as a rhetorical criticism, embodied work is also needed to investigate these spaces further.This book provides a much-needed update to the literature on parks and public lands as it is intentionally critical of American institutions like the NPS. Multiple chapters are devoted to how the NPS has repeatedly neglected Indigenous voices in park interpretation. Stuckey offers attentive and serious criticisms of the NPS, arguing that “Based in dispossession and erasure on one hand and displacement on the other, [the NPS] remains mired in the rhetoric and other practices of colonialism despite interpretive efforts to overcome those legacies” (53). This criticism recognizes the context of the contemporary moment when American federal agencies are asked to reckon with their colonial legacies. Stuckey concludes with clear calls to the NPS, emphasizing the need for action. Stuckey recommends that the NPS include this complex discourse in their interpretations rather than pretending parks are apolitical. Stuckey also calls for the NPS to position Indigenous voices as contemporary and not just histories, to “include consistent and clear interpretations that speak to Indigenous presence, removal, genocide, and contemporary lives . . . become foregrounded and made manifest in the present” (179). The reader is left with a deeper understanding of how America's parks function politically and, imperatively, with precise calls to public action.For the Enjoyment of the People interrogates identity in a way that is accessible to a public audience. America's national parks, monuments, memorials, and public lands are often depicted as non-controversial symbols of national unity. Quite the opposite is true, as Stuckey reveals, and their history and continued interpretation have profound implications on broader conceptions of what it means to be “American.” Stuckey's engaging style, in-depth case studies, and comprehensible analyses of complex policies and presidential rhetorics make this book eminently readable. For the Enjoyment of the People could serve as a helpful textbook for undergraduate or graduate courses about a variety of topics, from presidential discourse to environmental communication. Alternatively, Stuckey's political-rhetorical lens provides a contemporary perspective on the ongoing conversation surrounding identity and place, an important addition to the cross-disciplinary literature linking political power, space, and identity.

This article describes one writing center’s creation and assessment of a graduate editing service, a service for advanced graduate students at the end of their thesis or dissertation writing. Through discussion of the training, features, and assessment of the graduate editing service as well as its role in our larger suite of graduate writing support, we offer a roadmap for how other writing centers can develop writer-focused graduate editing services that support a range of diverse learners and their needs. Our two-stage analysis of 20 student texts includes a robust analysis of 6933 edits made by 10 editors and offers an overview of the common edits and the number of accepted edits in our service. This article also provides operationalized definitions of three kinds of editing practices in our service, including instructional editing, copyediting, and hybrid, and a taxonomy of common instructional practices including guidance (offering direct edits with information and instruction), question asking, responding as a reader, and shifting responsibility to the writer. With the presentation of instructional editing and its features, our article offers clear implications for training and ongoing assessment of editing services in a variety of contexts and helps provide an ethical response to the role that writing centers may play in editing student work.

This eight-year longitudinal case study follows one high school English teacher from her practicum and student teaching through three subsequent job sites, with one year off due to prohibitive job stress. To study the developmental path of Caitlin, the teacher, we rely on the metaphor of the twisting path, which comes from Vygotsky’s attention to socially mediated concept development. This development is reliant on engagement with obstacles that promote growth and conceptual synthesis, with some obstacles becoming prohibitive and discouraging and with the path proceeding in a serpentine rather than straightforward way. Our principal data source is a series of biannual interviews conducted either in person or via video-conferencing platforms. We trace Caitlin’s developmental path by attending to her encounters with competing perspectives, policies, and practices informing the English curriculum, especially as they were enforced by different stakeholders. These obstacles were at times internal to her own thinking (e.g., the tension between relational, student-centered instruction and the belief that students need guidance to reach their potential), at times local in terms of English department and schoolwide tensions (especially, contentious battles over canonical versus relational and contemporary teaching), and at times from distant sources in the form of community pressures and externally created policies affecting instruction (in particular, imposed standardized teaching and assessment in conflict with instruction predicated on relationships and teacher judgment). These conflicts were virtually nonexistent in the fourth school she taught in, an alternative school where test scores were far less important than establishing supportive relationships with students through which they experienced care and cultivation. This eight-year longitudinal case study contributes to research that investigates how school contexts affect teachers’ persistence and attrition, with attention to which sorts of environments provided obstacles that benefitted Caitlin’s development, and which were prohibitive.

Fully anonymous peer review enhances students’ writing and feedback abilities, encourages professionalism and kindness, and transforms the teaching dynamic. This essay describes the use of the Peerceptiv platform for fully anonymous peer review assignments in law school courses. This platform is uniquely helpful in fostering professional identity formation while helping students improve their analytical writing skills. However, implementing this peer review platform comes with challenges such as student reluctance and discomfort. With strategic communication and investment of time, these challenges can be overcome to realize the potential of this innovative approach and provide formative assessment, regardless of class size. Ultimately, scalable peer review helps students strengthen skills while developing collaborative professional identities throughout the law school curriculum.

Directed self-placement (DSP) allows for student agency in writing placement. DSP has been implemented in many composition programs, although it has not been used as widely for L2 writers in higher education. This study investigates the relationship between student placement decisions and students’ prior educational backgrounds, particularly in relationship to whether they had attended an English-medium high school or an intensive English program (IEP). Actual placement results via an exam were compared to 804 students’ self-placement decisions and correlated with their prior educational backgrounds. Findings indicated that most students’ DSP decisions matched actual exam placement results. However, there was a large number of DSP decisions that were higher or lower than exam placement results. Additionally, the longer students studied at an English-medium instruction high school, the more likely they were to place themselves higher than their exam placement. We conclude that DSP can be used in L2 writing programs, but with careful attention to learners’ educational backgrounds, proficiency, and sense of identity.

This study examined whether two integrated reading-to-write tasks could broaden the construct representation of the writing component of Duolingo English Test (DET). It also verified whether they could enhance DET’s predictive power of English academic writing in universities. The tasks were (1) writing a summary based on two source texts and (2) writing a reading-to-write essay based on five texts. Both were given to a sample (N = 204) of undergraduates from Hong Kong. Each participant also submitted an academic assignment written for the assessment of a disciplinary course. Three professional raters double-marked all writing samples against detailed analytical rubrics. Raw scores were first processed using Multi-Faceted Rasch Measurement to estimate inter- and intra-rater consistency and generate adjusted (fair) measures. Based on these measures, descriptive analyses, sequential multiple regression, and Structural Equation Modeling were conducted (in that order). The analyses verified the writing tasks’ underlying component constructs and assessed their relative contributions to the overall integrated writing scores. Both tasks were found to contribute to DET’s construct representation and add moderate predictive power to the domain performance. The findings, along with their practical implications, are discussed, especially regarding the complex relations between construct representation and predictive validity. • studied the concepts of construct representation (CR) and predictive validity (PV). • within the context of an AI-facilitated language test (Duolingo English Test). • Revealed the complex relations between CR and PV.

Verbatim source use (VSU) in integrated argumentative writing tasks may enhance linguistic complexity of writing performance. This assistance might present an unequal advantage for test-takers across levels of writing proficiency, engendering validity and fairness concerns. While previous research has mostly examined the relationships between source use characteristics and proficiency levels, the relationship between VSU and linguistic complexity remains underexplored. To further unpack these relationships, this study examined both the direct impact of VSU on linguistic complexity of writing performances and its indirect impact through interaction with writing proficiency. Using natural language processing tools and techniques, we examined 34 linguistic complexity features and three VSU features of 3250 argumentative writing performances on a university-level English Placement Test (EPT). We performed exploratory factor analysis to identify linguistic complexity dimensions and applied mixed-effect models to examine how VSU features and proficiency level impacted these dimensions. Post-hoc analyses suggested weak direct impacts of different VSU features on linguistic complexity, which might reflect different essay writing strategies. However, no meaningful indirect impact was found. The findings help unravel the impact of VSU on argumentative writing and provide empirical evidence for validity arguments for integrated writing assessments.

The paper discusses the relationship between leadership and expressivity as exemplified by the Polish President's address to the Ukrainian Parliament delivered on 22 May 2022. The study draws on existing understandings of expressivity and discursive leadership as well as previous studies on gesture in political rhetoric. Co-speech gestures are discussed as an interactional resource linked to emotion and evaluation, and as an inseparable part of the speaker’s public persona and identity. Following Bednarek (2011), the analysis considers the president’s expressivity at the micro-, meso- and macro-level, and it identifies a range of linguistic and gestural resources with which Andrzej Duda constructs a positive involved style while “communicating emotion” and “doing intensity.” The analysis also links the president’s linguistic expression of ardour and gestural behaviour to leadership capabilities, explaining how “relating to the audience” and “visioning” can stir and mobilise the audience in times of war and uncertainty.

ABSTRACT Despite Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s well-known influence on argumentation studies, it is striking that their theory of argumentation no longer stands out as a living project in the field. On the one hand, critics argue that their theory is inherently relativistic and therefore incapable of aiding argument evaluation. On the other hand, critics argue that, even as a descriptive theory, it fails to sufficiently justify its own systematic ambitions. This article addresses these dual concerns by returning to one of the most neglected yet most innovative aspects of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s theory of argumentation—its rhetorical methodology. Reconstructing two key aspects of this methodology in phenomenological terms, the author discusses that the theory of argumentation found in The New Rhetoric is a philosophically neutral framework for describing the already norm-laden practice of argumentation.

Background: This project investigates the persuasive strategies used when articulating the problem statement section of entrepreneurial business pitches. Literature review: Although there are many studies of the pitch genre, surprisingly few studies investigate the structural elements of the pitch. Our research fills this gap by structuring the pitch using data from Start Up Chile (SUP), a globally recognized business accelerator. Research questions: 1. Is there a relationship between certain industries and SUP's evaluation of exigence/opportunity? 2. In written problem statements, what rhetorical strategies appear most effective for articulating entrepreneurial exigencies to investors within SUP's business accelerator? Methodology: We analyze 44 written problem statements that scored highly on a metric of problem identification via an initial statistical analysis and a genre-based rhetorical move analysis. Results and discussion: We first establish that a relationship between SUP's ratings and the entrepreneurs’ industries cannot be assumed, then detail rhetorical moves are used by entrepreneurs. Our findings indicate that when entrepreneurs effectively construct problems/opportunities, they employ a cause-and-effect argumentative structure. Their “cause” is described as the result of a societal change or a shortcoming in current solutions to the problem, and the “effects” of this problem are pain points, which frequently manifest as a loss of time, money, or other resources. Implications: By identifying rhetorical moves from real-world instantiations of the problem-statement genre, we offer entrepreneurs and other business communicators persuasive strategies for navigating the rhetorical situation of the pitch.

Introduction: We introduce our initiative to integrate professional preparedness electronic portfolios (ePortfolios) within an undergraduate mechanical engineering program. EPortfolios provide students with a visual way to illustrate examples of their skills and can help set them apart in employment applications and interviews. About the case: To better prepare our students to communicate their preparedness to potential employers, we integrated ePortfolios within existing undergraduate design courses. We also designed a new portfolio studio course. Situating the case: This teaching case is situated through previous literature on professional preparedness ePortfolios. We limit our scope to studies within engineering and technical communication disciplines. Methods/approach: We integrated ePortfolio instruction and an accompanying ePortfolio artifact assignment requirement within three design classes in our undergraduate Mechanical Engineering curriculum. We assessed assignments and surveyed participants to understand students’ takeaways and approaches on the ePortfolio classroom instruction and assignment. Results/discussion: Results from 147 assignment submissions across three classes indicated that although most assignment submissions demonstrated effective communication of engineering skills, a considerable number of submissions lacked in clarity, professionalism, or relevance. Extended instructional time on ePortfolios could benefit students. More focused instruction could be integrated into existing courses or in a stand-alone portfolio studio course. Our design of this future course was informed by our assessment of student artifacts as well as what we learned about students’ perceptions of ePortfolios from the 130 survey responses. Conclusions: We share lessons learned for teachers from multiple disciplines interested in integrating professional preparedness ePortfolios within their curricula.

In this discussion, we consider how the use of scenario-based assessment (SBA) can provide students with a way of developing the digital communication skills that business communication research has found they will need for the workplace, alongside other aspects of professional competence. This is because SBA can be employed to engage learners in the same types of authentic performance tasks in a situated context that they will likely encounter in their professional lives. In addition, SBA can also be used to maximize the integrity of an assignment by harnessing the positive effects of using generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, while simultaneously mitigating against the misappropriation of AI by students. SBA allows learners to practice both their digital, and other, communication skills as well as contributing to their understanding of professional practice, and it also provides instructors with a powerful form of formative assessment. Our aim is to put forward a motivating and effective way of helping our students to develop the skills that they will need to become successful communicators in a postpandemic professional world.

My grandpa was a doomsday prepper. In 1962 he purchased fifty-four acres of land in a remote part of Oregon, which he planned to put to good use growing trees to log every fifty years or so. But that was not the primary motivation for his purchase. He had chosen this specific spot between San Francisco and Seattle after setting his engineering skills to calculating where atomic fallout would least likely circulate after those two cities were obliterated in the coming nuclear apocalypse. In my grandpa's fantasy, everyone would die but for his clan, who would survive in a postapocalyptic Eden. To me, my grandpa's logic seems backwards. Who would want to live in this postapocalyptic nightmare world? Why would I prepare for contingencies that did not also account for the safety and survival of my neighbors, friends, and colleagues? How could I live on knowing that I had done only enough to save myself? What if this self-centered thinking is precisely what precludes the human altruism necessary to stave off a nuclear war? Patriotic courage is typically epitomized by soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice for their country—is not doomsday prepping precisely the opposite, a manifestation of a selfish sort of mega-cowardice? It seems to me that if everyone thought like my grandpa did, that would perversely guarantee nuclear war. He who builds an ark, thirsts for the flood. From my perspective, if there were a nuclear holocaust or some world-ending event, then I agree with Mark Harwell's assessment in the final pages of his book Nuclear Winter: “The optimal location to be . . . may well be at some ground zero.”1Understanding the psyche of my apocalyptic prepper grandpa and people like him is why I picked up Casey Ryan Kelly's prescient book, Apocalypse Man. Kelly's exploration expands well beyond the narrow category of doomsday preppers, which is the subject of the first chapter. Kelly identifies doomsday preppers as belonging to a greater category, the “apocalyptic male” (Introduction), which includes “red pill” subscribers (Chapter 2), “incels” (short for “involuntary celibates”) (Chapter 3), open carry proponents (Chapter 4), the followers of former President Donald Trump, and what Kelly calls Trump's “rhetoric of aggrievement” (Chapter 5). Rather than dismiss the apocalyptic male as an aberration or the ramblings of a lunatic (as I might have before reading this book), Kelly dedicates serious time, attention, close reading, and criticism to understanding the apocalyptic male's psychological profile and politics. This deviant profile is especially dangerous to the extent that it is becoming more and more prevalent. As evinced by a never-ending and ever-increasing succession of terrorist activity in America since 9/11 (archived by NewAmerica.org) and the publication of Kelly's book, the apocalyptic male is becoming normalized. Just what constitutes the apocalyptic male?The paradox at the center of the apocalyptic male mentality as Kelly defines it is the belief in the rightful supremacy of the heterosexual white male and, simultaneously, the unjust victimhood that aggrieves him and prevents him from achieving “the good life.” These narratives of victimization are wide-ranging, resulting in groups of like-minded aggrieved . . . white men [who] have been emasculated by the family court system, affirmative action programs, man-hating feminists, gold-digging ex-wives, political correctness, job-taking immigrants, the social acceptance of queer intimacy, and even television situation comedies that satirize oafish working-class fathers. Popular articulations of wounded white masculinity reflect the rise of a reactionary politics of white male resentment that seizes tropes of victimhood and marginalization even as it celebrates white male primacy (2).Kelly shows how doomsday preppers, as seen on the popular eponymous series broadcasted on National Geographic, are not merely cosplaying the apocalypse; rather, they are longing for the coming of some sort of catastrophe which will return the white male to his proper place in a postapocalyptic hunter-gatherer world. “Red-pillers” and incels partake in the fetishization of their perceived victimhood, which Kelly grounds in the language of Freudian psychology. These are people who perversely take sadomasochistic pleasure in the act of bearing their wounds to one another and commiserating in online discussion board communities where they fantasize together about subsequent “righteous violence” (27). The incel sees himself as blameless. The problem lies not with himself, but with all women (if not all womankind) who fail to recognize the incel's natural superiority and desirability. The apocalyptic male takes no responsibility for his lot; it is always the world that is wrong. As Kelly argues: Abject white masculinity is underwritten by a powerful script of victimization that blames feminism and multiculturalism for white men's dwindling social and economic privileges. When one lives a life of entitlement, even the most modest demands for equality can be perceived as an assault (7).Kelly explains the effectiveness of the Trump campaign slogan “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” noting that it appeals to nostalgia for an imagined past in which these forces (immigrant caravans, feminists, non-white people, women, etc.) have not “penetrated” the victimized white male. The white male is returned to his rightful place as the apex predator of civilization (139). The dog whistle of MAGA is an implied answer to an implied question: Great for whom? To return the apocalyptic male to power would indeed require an apocalypse for everyone else.Kelly leads his reader through example after example of various manifestations of the category of apocalypse man. “Open Carry” laws are the subject of Chapter 4, which considers the pernicious logic of Second Amendment rhetoric. Kelly places this fantasy of the “good guy with a gun,” who might protect us (which us?) from an oppressive state, within the context of apocalyptic rhetoric. The overlap between “Open Carry” and incels in particular is seen in the overtly sexual language of guns “blowing,” “shooting a load,” “firing blanks,” in which the feelings of impotence, aggrievement, and disempowerment can be displaced and redeemed. “Open Carry” discourses depend on a phallocentric object (a gun) that promises the redemption of the apocalyptic male via righteous violence against a perceived—and often overtly coded Black—other (107–109).My copy of Apocalypse Man has found a spot on the bookshelf next to some topical company. I have shelved it aside Svetlana Boym's The Future of Nostalgia, a book that adds to Kelly's discussion of a particular flavor of misogynist nostalgia.2Cruel Optimism (2011) also leans against Kelly's book, in which Lauren Berlant describes the injurious sort of optimism that fantasizes an impossible future.3 Such optimism undergirds the fantasies of the apocalyptic male who dreams of a future in which patriarchy is restored by violence. In pursuing this impossible fantasy, this violent cruel optimism, the apocalyptic male is himself precluded from any possible “good life.” Another work in conversation with Apocalypse Man is Donna Zuckerberg's analysis of the use of classical allusion in misogynist and supremacist hate speech in Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age.4 These books agree with and strengthen Kelly's psychological taxonomy of the apocalyptic male; no doubt more critical discussion will be necessary given recent targeted persecution of the trans community by the conservative right.If one wanted to stare deeply into the abyss of fragile white supremacist misogyny, Kelly's category might expand to accommodate communities that have gained significant power and notoriety in recent months: QAnon followers, Boogaloo Boys, Three Percenters, and the like. Fittingly, Kelly begins and ends his book with vignettes of the white supremacist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA. Were Kelly to re-write this book today, he just as well could have begun and ended the book with the January 6th Capitol Insurrection. Whether or not Donald Trump manages to win another term in office in 2024, apocalypse men will be legion. The ramifications of their aggrieved worldview will continue to have deadly consequences. And that fact is perhaps the most terrifying aspect of Kelly's horrifyingly relevant book.

Asao Inoue’s work has dominated antiracist scholarship in writing studies, but is flawed when it comes to the performance of Black students. This essay reviews a large, overlooked body of work on antiracist feedback from educational psychology and suggests ways that this work can inform our own research and practice.

The relationship between tutoring and teaching has been a recurrent topic of interest among writing center directors and writing program administrators. While scholarship agrees tutoring experience aids composition teachers with implementing process pedagogy and fostering a collaborative classroom, the relationship between tutoring and assessment of student writing is less clear. This qualitative study uses interviews with eight graduate teaching assistants with tutoring experience to examine how they transfer and juxtapose knowledge, practices, and values for response between the writing center and classroom. Like previous scholarship, this research finds writing center tutoring contributes to teachers’ enactment of constructivist, student-centered pedagogy and enhances their understanding of students’ relationship to writing and feedback, standard language ideology, and systemic inequities in education. However, evaluation led these instructors to experience tension between their values and preferred respondent roles, with many reporting anxious grading processes and some experimenting with alternatives to traditional grading. The article concludes with suggestions to build bridges between tutoring and teaching contexts, particularly through explicit attention to antiracist pedagogy and alternative assessment practices.

Giving feedback to student writing is one of the writing teacher’s most important tasks in the classroom, and there are many forms of feedback that writing teachers can use such as written feedback, teacher-student conferencing, peer feedback or self-assessment. More than these options, the influx of technologies into writing classrooms provides teachers with the use of screencast video feedback when responding to student writing. In this article, two second language writing teachers questioned their feedback practices when responding to students’ texts and implemented feedback innovation by using screencast video feedback in their classrooms with the goal of exploring how their attempts to use video feedback affected their individual practices. The implementation of video feedback opened their eyes as writing teachers because of its multimodality. The combination of aural, visual, textual, and gestural modes was particularly innovative for them because it helps them to envision feedback as a tool for promoting the improvement and learning of writing instead of correcting students’ immediate errors in writing. This article provides ideas and suggestions for writing teachers interested in improving feedback practices with screencast video feedback.