As language and communication
instructors, we have an abundance of experience about what writing does and can do, both inside
and outside our classrooms. As researchers, we work from empirical insights on the situated
purposes, processes, and possibilities for writing and its practice. In direct and indirect ways,
agentive tools increasingly impact “how we write, what we write, and the networks and assemblages
in which we write” (Bedington et al., 2024, p. 1). Growing access to artificial intelligence (AI)
applications changes the affordances with which students and instructors plan projects, generate
ideas, and structure their documents. As these changes are underway, instructors encounter “much
under-informed punditry” making assertions about writing pedagogy, with neither formal study nor
experienced teaching to support or guide those assertions (Majdik & Graham, 2024, p. 224). A core
challenge we face as scholars and teachers of writing is not that there is too little extant research and
understanding about what writing is or does. Rather, the issue is that this research is not prominent
enough. So, what does our collective writing studies knowledge suggest in relation to this newly
animated topic of writing about, with, or against generative AI tools? This paper asks: which of our
core disciplinary insights are most relevant at this moment and how do they help us frame the
teaching of research and writing in relation to generative AI tools? Given both authors’ research and
teaching backgrounds, this analysis focuses on conceptual structures and empirical insights provided
by rhetorical genre theory and genre-based pedagogy.
Here is how we put it in the introduction of our recent paper. 3/
philarchive.org/rec/THIGAA
#writingstudies #cdnwrds #teamrhetoric #genai+writing
