This study evaluates a “feedback-only,” constrained-generative AI tool designed to support revision without generating or rewriting student text. StoryCoach was developed for a business communication elective and grounded in cognitive apprenticeship with principles of feedback literacy. The tool generated structured feedback: one strength, one opportunity, and one reflective question per submission. Analysis of 57 paired drafts showed significant gains in feature-specific rhetorical execution, with vividness as the primary quantitative indicator (Cohen’s d  = 1.39), supported by independent reader judgments and student reflections. Findings demonstrate that constrained-generative AI can function as a pedagogical partner that strengthens rhetorical awareness and preserves authorship integrity.

This study investigates how students interpret AI-assisted written communication in a university context. Although AI assistant programs are increasingly used to draft institutional emails, little is known about whether they enhance clarity or undermine trust and perceived professionalism. Using survey data from 194 Vietnamese undergraduates, the study validates four constructs including perceived usefulness, trust, perceived professionalism, and attitudes toward AI assistant programs, and examines their effects on students’ intention to read emails frequently. Results show that students clearly distinguish clarity benefits from credibility concerns, indicating that AI-assisted emails can improve comprehension.

We conducted a post hoc analysis of 771 students’ argumentative writing plans and essays in the Criterion ® database, a digital writing tool, to explore the relations among plan features, essay quality, and writing traits. Students in the study were in Grades 5 to 10 from 68 schools. We found that older students produced writing plans that received higher scores and demonstrated greater genre-specific knowledge than younger students, but regardless of their grade, most students did not consider alternative perspectives or rebut counterarguments in their writing plans. We also found that students’ choice of plan templates was associated with the scores of their plans. Further, factor analysis showed that six of the seven plan feature scores hung together in a single factor (Factor 1) and correlated with multiple trait scores (Factor 2), accounting for most of the shared variance connecting plan scores with writing traits. The “both sides” plan feature loaded on a different factor by its own, suggesting that considering different perspectives is a challenging skill that students may need extra support to develop.

This study investigated how reading medium (print vs. digital) and communicative purpose (informative vs. persuasive) shape writing processes and outcomes in integrative academic tasks. Eighty-one university students read three source texts in print or digitally and, after random assignment, produced either an informative or persuasive synthesis within a 2×2 between-subjects design. Keystroke logging recorded pausing across three writing stages, indexing planning, translation, and revision. Text quality was scored with holistic rubrics capturing discourse features and integration of sources. Reading medium significantly influenced pausing: students who read in print paused longer during writing, yet medium had no effect on overall text quality. Task purpose mattered: persuasive tasks yielded higher-quality formal writing, whereas scores reflecting level of source integration did not differ. No interaction between reading medium and task purpose emerged. When controlling for reading comprehension, working memory, and planning ability, the main effects of medium and task purpose remained, but period-specific pausing effects were no longer significant. Findings highlight distinct roles for reading medium and task purpose in shaping writing behavior and performance. The results support cautious causal interpretations and suggest that incorporating digital reading and varying task types may enhance academic writing in higher education, informing curriculum design and assessment.

How do we envision the future in community? The authors in this issue of Reflections: A Journal of Community Engaged Writing and Rhetoric help us interrogate this critical question. At a time when humanity is being attacked and challenged on multiple levels across institutions and borders, the articles in this issue provide a small glimpse into how community work can continue grounding us as scholars, practitioners, and humans seeking ulterior alternatives.

This article explores the intersections of queer subjectivity, community storytelling, and recovery literacy through the digital storytelling project, Voices from Rock Bottom (VFRB). Drawing on feminist and queer theoretical frameworks, including queerstory of recovery (Bacibianco) and the concept of rhetorical velocity (DeVoss and Ridolfo), this research highlights how VFRB creates an inclusive multimodal platform for recovering alcoholics and addicts to share their stories beyond the privatized, hegemonic spaces of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). This article argues that VFRB’s feminist construct creates a civic space where queer recovering alcoholics and addicts can resist institutionalized constraints, perform their stories, and engage in collective knowledge-making. Ultimately, this study advocates for a broader understanding of recovery storytelling as a communal act of dissent that empowers queer individuals to challenge hegemonic frameworks and offer new ways of knowing, being, and narrating recovery experiences in the public sphere, through what the author terms as “queerstory of recovery.” Keywords: Voices from Rock Bottom, queerstory of recovery, recovery literacy, queer subjectivity, queerstory, queer rhetoric, recovery rhetoric

Volume 25, Issue 1, Fall 2026

This paper highlights the reflective experiences of five graduate students who emerged as practitioner-scholars in the field of technical and professional communication (TPC) through their participation in the Spring 2025 graduate course, Writing Grants and Proposals, at Sam Houston State University. The semi-simulated, Better Sam Program assignment, grounded in a community-engaged and social justice framework, required students to develop unsolicited full proposals addressing local issues or opportunities within SHSU or the Huntsville community. This assignment challenged students to align their proposals with community needs while engaging in ethical, research-driven practices. Drawing on extensive community engagement, students developed proposals that were not only realistic and contextually grounded but also reflective of broader social justice concerns. The reflective process, guided by structured questions, encouraged students to critically analyze their proposal development experiences and consider the broader implications of their work for community advocacy and social responsibility. This paper presents these reflections, offering insights into how grant writing can be a transformative educational experience that fosters critical thinking, ethical engagement, and social impact.

The rise of mass incarceration since the 1970s in the United States and the many ways that prisons touch our lives have positioned prisons as inevitable—even essential–-institutions (e.g., Davis, 2003). Prison abolitionists challenge this norm by offering alternatives that do not rely on prisons to solve social problems and address violence. Drawing from a collection of over 500 letters from the LGBT Books to Prisoners archive, we examine the many ways that abolitionist literacy practices contribute to envisioning this future. The literacy practices of the incarcerated letter writers, we argue, challenge the ways that incarcerated people are meant to engage and what they are meant to know, allowing for the building of new immaterial and material worlds. These queer immaterial worlds are the textual worlds where queer lives, experiences, and desires exist within the prison system; they are often ephemeral, leaving ghost-like traces as people navigate both the affirming and community-building role of literacy practices in prison, as well as the dangers associated with those same practices. The imaginative practice that these letter writers engage in is essential to the broader work that envisions a more abolitionist future. As acts of worldmaking, these literacy practices have much to teach us about what it means to imagine an abolitionist future, and to practice worldmaking in a world of impossibility.

This conceptual article develops a model of positive LinkedIn communication, arguing that responsive, affirming, and authentic interaction—organized into two higher-order behavioral dimensions—strengthens perceived support and trust, thereby shaping professional outcomes (e.g., recruitment, collaboration, and commercial opportunities). By shifting attention from static profile signals to communicative behaviors enacted in posts, comments, and messages, the framework advances testable propositions and specifies mechanisms, boundary conditions, and potential trade-offs that invite empirical evaluation across organizational and cultural contexts.

This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.Rhetoricians and bioethicists have analyzed medical assistance in dying (MAiD), sometimes referred to as physician assisted suicide or euthanasia, and suggested that it falls into predictable topoi. To deepen our understanding of public deliberation around medical assistance in dying, we propose a Multi-Methodological, Multiply Ontological (M3O) approach. M3O encourages phronesis through methodological and ontological pivots. Diverging findings from each pivot may surface complexities that only come from putting those findings into conversation. We analyzed public testimony about MAiD bills proposed in Connecticut and Nevada with both framegram and topoi analysis, to discern how pro and anti-MAiD rhetors conceptualized personhood in this discourse. We found that both sides build arguments around intersecting topoi of (1) personhood as a set of ontological traits, (2) personhood as a social practice, (3) questions of autonomy, and (4) issues of vulnerability to suffering. When placed into the context of existing data on MAiD discourse and policy, we found that questions of dignity and personhood may be placed into deeper conversation with an analysis of risk and autonomy to complicate our assumptions about the values implied in this discourse.

This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.The current definition of post-truth creates an adversarial relationship with rhetorical theory, relying on a positivist stance toward epistemology. Additionally, the most public-facing scholarship concerning post-truth tends to view knowledge in rather concrete ways, failing to account for the nuance of differing types of knowledge and rhetorical situations. As a result, most of the pragmatic approaches to dealing with disingenuous post-truth rhetorical tactics are predicated on positivism (e.g., fact-checking) and post-truth gets either downplayed or only treated theoretically in rhetorical scholarship. This article redefines post-truth in a manner more amendable to rhetorical theory and presents a heuristic predicated on stasis theory as a method for evaluating the epistemic certainty of rhetorical claims. The heuristic is then used to analyze an exchange from an episode of the podcast Armchair Expert to demonstrate how rhetorical discourse can become unproductive and adversarial when interlocutors claim an inappropriate amount of epistemic certainty, in particular by treating value-based claims as facts. Discussions of the post-truth dilemma need to extend beyond the confines of the current definition to include all discursive practices that ascribe the wrong amount of epistemic certainty to particular claims, not just practices that challenge established knowledge and facts.

This article adds to previous literature on writing “wayfinding” by examining how a writer’s religious beliefs and commitments shape their rhetorical choices and influence their writing wayfinding. The 5-year longitudinal study we report here used discourse-based interviews to understand the experiences of student writers who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Examining texts our study participants wrote in and outside of college classrooms, our analysis highlights moments when they used emotion and affect as rhetorical strategies to accomplish instrumental and relational goals. We found that in these moments, participants’ commitments as Latter-day Saints and their related identities significantly affected their writing decisions and their sense of wayfinding, particularly as they navigated writing contexts outside of familiar academic settings. The article suggests that understanding the challenges and opportunities writers face in the intersections between their rhetorical choices and their commitments as members of an organized church can help writing teachers better support students' writing development.

This article presents findings from a content analysis of 707 articles appearing between 2011 and 2020 in five journals issued by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), a major teaching and research organization in North America. We examined topics and theoretical frameworks, finding that while core topics such as academic writing, curriculum, cultural studies, literacy, and teacher development remained stable, the latter part of the previous decade (2016–2020) showed increased attention to labor, diversity, social justice, and writing program administration, alongside declines in work focused on history, educational policy, ESL, and community writing. Many articles lacked explicit theoretical grounding, often using broad labels like “critical theory,” though use of specified frameworks (e.g., feminist and postcolonial theory) has grown. We identify differences among the journals and discuss the implications of these findings for NCTE, for content analysis as a method and for scholars’ efforts to navigate a complex and expanding field.

We invite readers to imagine Graphic RHM as more than a column but a growing community of practice (CoP) and offer two analogies for doing so: 1) a mycelial network with connections branching across the fields of rhetoric, health and medicine, and the graphic arts, and 2) a beehive, where sustained growth comes from intentional contributions and shared effort. The comics featured in Column 2 (https://medicalrhetoric .com /graphicRHM /home /archive/column -2/), including Ann E. Fink’s “The Work of Grief,” reflect the range and depth of work emerging from this CoP.

Survivor’s guilt haunts countless veterans, yet little research examines how veterans rhetorically process this experience. This study analyzes poetry from post-9/11 veterans to identify a distinct rhetorical mode we term reparative ethos.  While existing Mental Health Rhetoric Research (MHRR) has identified and extensively explored recuperative ethos—strategies used to restore credibility in the face of externally imposed stigma—we propose that some veterans may also engage in what we call reparative ethos. Unlike recuperative ethos, which addresses externally imposed stigma through appeals to living audiences, reparative ethos aims to make amends to internalized representations of lost comrades. Drawing on Melanie Klein’s object relations theory and MHRR, we analyze poems from Warrior Writers anthologies that explicitly address survivor’s guilt. Our analysis reveals that veterans engage in narrative acts of reparation directed toward deceased others, addressing both the loss of external relationships and threats to internalized military ethos. This research extends MHRR by demonstrating how trauma can generate inward-facing rhetorical strategies focused on healing rather than persuasion, offering new frameworks for understanding veteran mental healthcare and creative expression.

Overall, vaccine acceptance appears to be high. But vaccine hesitancy persists nonetheless. This article draws on moral foundations theory (MFT) to rhetorically explore possibilities of storytelling within the genre of the vaccine anecdote, a form of discourse common to vaccine-skeptical discourses. Informed by social scientific accounts of the moral foundations associated with high vaccine hesitancy, I analyze three examples of pro-vaccine anecdotes—an anecdote of injury, an anecdote of conversion, and an anecdote of positive outcome—to explore strategies of personal storytelling toward the values of vaccine-hesitant publics. From the analysis, I describe three specific modes of storytelling (haunting, continuing, and intuiting) while weighing their varying promise for aligning vaccine-supportive anecdotes with mild or more extreme levels of vaccine hesitancy.

Those who love people with dementia often experience the phenomenon of ambiguous loss, where the individual with dementia is both present and absent. This essay analyzes Kirsten Johnson's 2020 documentary Dick Johnson is Dead as a performance of ambiguity, extending Arthur Frank's (2013) framework of illness narratives and Kenneth Burke's (1945) concept of ambiguity. I propose that narrative ambiguity can serve as an organizing heuristic for understanding the complexity of ambiguous loss and dementia. The essay examines four key aspects of narrative ambiguity in the film: the ambiguity of presence, time, persona, and setting. By exploring these components, I demonstrate that performing an ambiguous narrative can foster acceptance of ambiguity for both the performer and the audience. Narrative ambiguity offers a valuable alternative framework for understanding ambiguous loss and broader narratives about individuals with dementia.

This article demonstrates the value of sentiment analysis for contextualizing audiences in Rhetoric of Health and Medicine (RHM) by comparing vaccine related newspaper comments to non-vaccine related comments in the New York Times from 2017–2023 (n = 22,330,999). Our results show that while all comments skew negative, following a similar trend line, after the emergence of COVID-19, vaccine related comments decouple from the negative trend of baseline non-vaccine comments, becoming more negative and volatile. These results raise additional questions about the nature of the negativity for vaccine related comments, and we provide a properly sampled dataset for follow-up research to encourage iterative investigation into the public response to vaccine policy. In addition to these findings, this article calls for broader engagement with Natural Language Processing (NLP) and data science in RHM.

Editors' Introduction to Volume 9 Issue 1

This study contributes to the emerging research on generative AI and writing pedagogy by exploring how college writing students make use of GAI when offered instruction in a range of responsible uses and latitude to integrate it into their writing process as they see fit. We analyzed chat log data and papers from participants recruited from six sections in which students were guided in experimenting with ChatGPT Plus and permitted to use it to produce up to 50% of submitted work. Through a combination of AI and human thematic content analysis of student chat logs, we found that in 18.6% of prompts, students asked ChatGPT to write for them. The rest of the prompts involved work leading up to or in support of the writing process. Human thematic content analysis of papers showed that students used ChatGPT to generate 8.2% of the writing they submitted. The most common rhetorical purpose of the AI-generated text they included was discussion/analysis/synthesis. English as a foreign language students (EFLs) in the sample prompted ChatGPT to clarify understanding less often than non-EFLs and integrated less AI-generated text into their papers, with a particularly notable difference in their use of AI-generated summaries. This unexpected finding merits further research, but it suggests that EFLs may use GAI for somewhat different purposes than non-EFL peers.

This special issue of the Journal of Writing Research brings together seven empirical studies of the relationship between writing and generative AI, examining what can be systematically observed and measured about the functioning of generative AI in educational and professional writing contexts. Collectively, the studies demonstrate the necessity and value of methodological pluralism for investigating a complex, rapidly evolving phenomenon. In their contributions, the researchers use experimental comparisons, mixed-methods intervention designs, corpus-based analyses, computational linguistic techniques, and qualitative interpretive approaches. Taken together, these methods enable lines of inquiry that no single approach could sustain: comparisons of AI and human performance in professional writing tasks; analyses of how writers at different ages and levels of expertise engage AI tools; examinations of how assessment systems register and respond to AI-generated prose; and investigations of how human readers interpret texts with ambiguous authorship. By foregrounding both the affordances and limitations of different methodological traditions, the articles present a multifaceted approach to the study of writing and generative AI.

Since the launch of ChatGPT, the use of and debate around generative AI has grown rapidly. Professionals whose work depends on writing have expressed concern about the potential impact of such tools on their roles. But are these concerns justified? Can ChatGPT truly take on the responsibilities of a professional writer? This study investigates that question by comparing the performance of ChatGPT with that of professional editors tasked with optimizing business communication. We conducted two studies, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. In the first, three experienced editors were asked to rewrite four business letters. Their editing processes were recorded using the Microsoft Snipping Tool, and immediately afterward, we conducted retrospective interviews using stimulated recall. These interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Insights from the observations and interviews informed the design of the prompt instructions used in the second study. In the second study, we asked ChatGPT to revise the same four letters using three different prompt types. The Simple prompt instructed the model to “make this text reader-focused.” The B1 prompt referred explicitly to the CEFR B1 language level, requiring ChatGPT to tailor the text for intermediate readers. Finally, the Process prompt simulated the editing steps observed in the professional editors’ workflows. To evaluate outcomes, we conducted both a qualitative comparison of the revised texts and a quantitative readability analysis using LiNT, a validated tool developed for Dutch texts. Our results show that the human editors substantially improved the readability of the original letters, reducing the use of unfamiliar words, shortening complex sentences, and increasing personal engagement through pronoun use. Among the AI outputs, ChatGPT B1 achieved results most comparable to the editors, both in readability and accuracy. In contrast, ChatGPT Simple fell short in terms of clarity and introduced errors through faulty inferences. Surprisingly, ChatGPT Process also underperformed compared to ChatGPT B1 and the human editors. Only the editors' and ChatGPT B1versions were free from errors. In the discussion, we reflect on how generative AI is reshaping the concept of writing within organizations, the skills required to produce effective written communication and the impact on writing pedagogy. Rather than replacing human editors, we argue that generative AI can play a valuable role as a collaborative tool in the organizational writing process.

This study focuses on a generative AI approach to facilitate qualitative analysis in Writing Studies research. We gathered 13,336 one-sentence to one-paragraph responses written by 3,334 incoming students in a directed self-placement program administered at a large R1 U.S. university. In these responses, students describe their high school writing experience and college writing expectations. In stage one of the project, we pilot the use of Retrieval-Augmented Generation to expedite the selection of relevant responses for a topic—in this case, students’ positive self-assessments as writers. The selected responses were then compared to a random sample and rated by three faculty with writing expertise. In stage two, these faculty generated codes and themes from a subset of the responses, incorporating ChatGPT-4 through the stages of thematic analysis. Results show that the use of AI expedites and enhances qualitative analysis, but human participation in the process is still essential. We suggest a machine-in-the-loop framework with which Writing Studies researchers can more readily integrate generative AI to study large corpora of student writing.

With the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, dialogue systems like chatbots are redefining traditional concepts of authorship and impacting critical aspects of writing. In educational contexts, previous research has pointed out new opportunities associated with using chatbots for writing instruction and support. This study involved 108 students across 10 classes in Norwegian K-12 education, examining how they employed educational chatbots as a support tool in L1 writing assignments. Through an inductive, data-driven thematic analysis of 895 student prompts, five recurring patterns emerged: information requests, structural guidance, example requests, content creation, feedback on text, and follow-up clarification. Aggregated results show that information requests were the most common pattern, particularly among younger students, whereas content creation and feedback on text were more prevalent among secondary and upper secondary students. Illustrative examples from the conversations revealed that generative AI extensively produced content on student’s behalf, even when students primarily sought scaffolding. The study proposes that effective scaffolding of writing through educational chatbots requires not only refining students' prompting strategies but also enhancing system designs that better support pedagogical use of generative AI.

To understand how human readers navigate a literate landscape that newly includes AI-generated prose, we asked participants (n=76) to read and make decisions about who and/or what is responsible for writing anonymized, “ambiguously-authored” texts. Findings suggest that readers’ assumptions about who and/or what wrote a text are rooted in “felt sense.” Prompting participants to make their “felt sense” explicit allowed us to catalog the evidential warrants participants relied on when making authorship decisions. Enabled by a modified grounded theory approach to analysis, we constructed two main themes. First, readers are “triggered” by certain textual cues that, when combined with prior experiences and knowledge, evidentially warrant assumptions about who and/or what wrote a text. Second, after recognizing the consequences of making one’s felt sense explicit, some readers experience what we call an “axiological crisis.” Axiological crises emerge when participants meta-cognitively hear or see themselves attributing certain characteristics and values to an AI text-generator or human author. We conclude by reimagining the axiological crisis as an opportunity for improving metacognitive awareness about how felt sense affects our reading practices.

In this study, we examine the feasibility of augmenting student-written essays with those generated by large language models (LLMs) for scoring essays. We found that with correct instructions, generative AI systems such as GPT-4 and GPT-4o can generate essays similar to those written by students in terms of surface-level linguistic features, although material differences may still exist. Systematic analyses revealed that scoring models trained with synthetic data perform comparably to models trained using student essays, but the performance varies across prompts and the sizes of the model training sample. The augmented models could alleviate large discrepancies between human and AI scores on the subgroup level that may be introduced by a lack of training samples for a particular subgroup or due to inherent biases in LLMs. We also explored an established method – DecompX – on token importance to identify and explain AI predictions. Future research directions and limitations of this study are also discussed.

This empirical exploration investigates how integrating a handwritten diary with a generative AI writing companion can strengthen elementary school students' writing habits and interests in a naturalistic classroom setting. The AI companion serves as a personalized assistant, offering real-time ideas, suggestions, and feedback. By encouraging students to handwrite daily experiences and emotions, then digitize their entries, the approach fosters both reflection and skill development. Over 18 weeks, 32 students from grades three to five (average age 10.5 years old) recorded their diary in Chinese and interacted with the AI companion. This exploratory study employed a pre-post, single-group design, analyzing diary entries, interaction logs, and questionnaire data to assess changes in writing participation and interest. The findings indicate three major outcomes: a notable increase in writing participation, reflected by a rise in the number of ideas and entry length; an enhanced level of writing interest, demonstrating the effectiveness of merging traditional handwriting with AI tools; and improved writing behavior through more frequent and diverse writing activities. When students encountered challenges—such as topic selection or content organization—the AI companion supplied up to three suggestions, preventing information overload and preserving independent thinking. Overall, this interactive, AI-supported environment transformed writing from a solitary task into a dynamic, collaborative process, boosting motivation and quality. The study thus illustrates how strategically blending handwritten diary with innovative AI systems can enrich writing education and sustain students' long-term engagement, while acknowledging its exploratory nature and the need for further research to establish causal links.

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the U.K. government’s means of allocating funding to universities based on assessments of the research they produce. Conducted every five years, this exercise now includes not only the ‘quality’ of research but also its real-world ‘impact’. This helps determine the £7.16 billion distributed annually to universities and influences the reputations of institutions and academics. Writers are therefore keen to make the most persuasive argument for their work they can in these submissions through the narrative case studies that the submission requires. In this article, we examine all 6,361 case studies from the last exercise in 2021 to explore the rhetorical presentation of impact through an analysis of authorial stance. We found considerable use of self-mention, hedges, and boosters, with the hard science fields containing statistically significantly more markers and applied disciplines being particularly strong users. The study contributes to our understanding of stance in academic writing and the role of rhetorical persuasion in high-stakes assessment genres.

Counterproductive meeting behaviors (CMBs) are meeting behaviors that distract members from meeting goals. Using an expectancy violations theory lens, this study explored how subtle, nonverbal CMBs were perceived by meeting members. Additionally, this study considered how apologizing for the behavior may minimize negative perceptions of CMBs. Results showed that meeting members generally viewed subtle, nonverbal CMBs more negatively than the control condition. Further, mobile communication was perceived more negatively than arriving late, and apologies did not impact perceptions of subtle, nonverbal CMBs. These findings are explained in light of expectancy violations theory and apology research.

This article is a case study dealing with virtual communication experiences of the Indian executives engaged in remote work using online media during the pandemic phase. The author employs qualitative research methodology of ethnography by using a questionnaire circulated online to garner descriptive data regarding virtual communication from Indian executives in various corporate roles who had to take recourse to full-time virtual communication channels to continue their work. The data obtained from a longitudinal study of 12 months spanning from March 2021 to March 2022 was coded with an objective to plot the experiential spectrum of corporate managers using media richness theory and a psychobiological model, as online communication became a singular medium to process all kinds of conversations ranging from routine to negative and persuasive. It became the only tool for leadership execution as well as leadership enhancement compelling corporate heads to improvise media customization methods expeditiously to overcome the limiting constraints of its intrinsic lean outlet. After analyzing the data, the author concludes that virtual communication has now become an integral part of contemporary corporate communication ecosystem owing to the ‘best practices’ that managers invented during their ‘remote work only’ period when they were thrown into the virtual space with its insular gamut of applicability. Remote work also coerced executives to discover the latent potential of this communication channel, which was not apparent when this medium existed only as an elective channel in the ‘plurally channelled’ pre-pandemic work environments. The study provides a comprehensive repository of virtual communication techniques not just for the consumption of management classroom embedding industry inputs into the theoretical curriculum but also for corporate executives who began their careers in an environment of ‘channel sovereignty’ in the post-pandemic setups. The case study, thus, acts as a communication lab presenting online communication pathology and its incubation in industry environments. The author posits that the communication experimentation done during the remote work phase of the pandemic has changed the status of this medium in the realm of management communication from debilitating to dynamic irreversibly.

The hegemony of English, or at least a particular form of English, has been robustly critiqued, yet is far from having been abandoned in teaching.[1] In addition, dominant discourse deems Native American languages “extinct” or otherwise incapable of speaking to academic topics. However, Indigenous peoples develop language for various subject areas, and languages are used in ways that represent the cultural perspectives of their users.[2] Such perspectives are part of the heart of Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty, and the right to use Indigenous languages supports, quite simply, Indigenous peoples’ right to speak and think.[3] Declining to accept assignments in an Indigenous or any heritage language (or requiring translations) conveys the message that English is needed in academic contexts, and is therefore communicatively superior. I argue that writing courses should support student refusals of translation, creating a situation where an instructor may not know what the content of a student submission even is, and that this inability “to know” serves the aims of decolonization.   [1] Alim & Smitherman 2012 [2] See: Kimura & Counceller 2009, McCarty & Nicholas 2014, Wilson & Kamanā 2011, Reyhner 2010, McIvor & McCarty 2017 [3] These rights are a main tenet of how Leonard (2008, 2011, 2021) theorizes language reclamation

“The Schooling of Gestural Listening” attends to how gestural listening—defined as all of listening’s embodied manifestations, such as nodding and nonverbal backchanneling—is used, shaped, and then evaluated by school. The author shows how gestural listening is first leveraged to help students gain literacy, then disciplined into overly-restrained embodied norms, eventually fusing with notions of classroom management and student attitude. To illustrate this trajectory, the article draws upon Nicolas Philibert’s 2002 film Être et Avoir and the work of early literacy figures Marie Clay and Megan Watkins. Throughout, the essay argues that gestural listening’s relegation to an amalgamated landscape of “good” or “correct” conduct in school inordinately affects neurodiverse students. The author investigates this phenomenon by highlighting the writing of two students with self-disclosed ADHD diagnoses, and by engaging with scholars of neurodiversity and disability such as Melanie Yergeau, Shannon Walters, and Thomas Brown. By reminding readers of gestural listening’s affordances in early literacy acquisition, and its subsequent flattening by the process of schooling, this article ultimately aims to render it visible to educators once again, especially to those working in secondary and college environments where listening’s rich gestural register is often delimited to narrow perceptions of “correct” conduct.

Deborah Brandt’s concept of literacy sponsorship remains foundational in writing studies but, as Brandt herself noted in 2015, its sharper insights into power, ideology, and asymmetry have often been softened in application. Building on this framework, Kara Poe Alexander has shown how reciprocal forms of sponsorship emerge in service-learning contexts where students act as both recipients and providers of literacy support. Inspired by this expanded model, this symposium essay returns to the original concept of sponsorship not to dispute its fundamentals but to continue extending it toward a more networked, mutual vision that better reflects the conditions of AI-mediated, experiential learning. Drawing on my own institutional example, this essay traces how literacy sponsorship moves bidirectionally across instructional, technological, and community spaces. It invites further dialogue about the future of literacy sponsorship in an age of distributed expertise and asks how our field might adapt its theories to better account for the tangled, mutual economies of literacy unfolding around us.

For many transnational students in North America, digital literacies entail precarious participation—the adaptive engagement in digital literacy practices under conditions of systemic vulnerability and instability. This multiple case study examines how Chinese international students at a Canadian university perceive and navigate the precarity of their digital literacy practices across national and cultural boundaries. Findings reveal that the four participants exhibit tacit sensitivity to transnational digital precarity, employ strategic adaptation, and engage in measured resistance that cautiously transgresses digital norms. These insights contribute to broader discussions on digital literacies, transnational literacies, and digital precarity, extending and complicating existing frameworks in writing studies, literacy studies, and media studies.

Argumentation is at the core of political communication. We study what criteria people use when they evaluate argument quality. We ask how justification content and argument source – who presents the argument – influence perceived argument quality, as well as how these two interact. Regarding justification content, we rely on criteria derived from deliberative democracy, and separate appeals to common or private interests. Regarding argument source, we study partial, impartial and reluctant sources. The promoted policy is in accordance with the interests of partial sources, it conflicts with the interests of reluctant sources, whereas impartial sources’ interests are not affected. We observed that appeals to common interest yielded higher perceived argument and justification quality compared to appeals to private interests. Our central observation was that sources did not influence perceived argument quality, unless arguments appealed to private interests. In other words, the influence of the argument source was contingent on argument content.