From an Unsettled Middle: A Critical-Ethical Stance for GenAI-Engaged Writing Assignments

References

1. Adler-Kassner Linda, and Wardle Elizabeth. Writing Expertise: A ResearchBased Approach to Writing and Learning Across Disciplines. The WAC Clearinghouse and UP of Colorado 2022, https://doi.org/10.37514/PRA-B.2022.1701.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aguilar Gabriel Lorenzo. “Rhetorically Training Students to Generate with AI: Social Justice Applications for AI as Audience.” Computers and Composition, vol. 71, Mar 2024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102828.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Anderson Paul, et al. “How to Create High-Impact Writing Assignments that Enhance Learning and Development and Reinvigorate WAC/WID Programs: What Almost 72,000 Undergraduates Taught Us.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 13, no. 4 2016, pp 1–18. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2016.13.4.13.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Anson Chris M. “Crossing Thresholds: What’s to Know about Writing Across the Curriculum.” Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies, edited byAdler-Kassner Linda and Wardle Elizabeth, Utah State UP 2015, pp 203–19.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bali Maha. “What I Mean When I Say Critical AI Literacy.” Reflecting Allowed, 1Apr 2023, https://blog.mahabali.me/educational-technology-2/what-i-mean-when-i-say-critical-ai-literacy/.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Basgier Christopher. “Addressing Artificial Intelligence Anxiety in Higher Education with Positive Framing.” AI Practitioner, vol. 26, no. 3, Sept 2024, pp 8–13, https://doi.org/10.12781/978-1-907549-60-1-2.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Basgier Christopher. “‘Never Let a Good [Literacy] Crisis Go to Waste’: Writing Across the Curriculum Administration Amid Artificial Intelligence Anxiety.” Rethinking Writing Education in the Age of Generative AI, edited byWang Chaoran and Tian Zhongfeng, Routledge 2025.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Basgier Christopher. “Q: Why Talk About AI *Literacy*?” Prose and Processors, 7Jan 2024, https://christopherbasgier.substack.com/p/q-why-talk-about-ai-literacy.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bean John C., and Melzer Dan. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. Jossey-Bass 2021.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Beck Estee, et al. “Critical Digital Literacy as Method for Teaching Tactics of Response to Online Surveillance and Privacy Erosion.” Computers and Composition, vol. 61, Sept 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102654.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Bedington Andelyn, et al. “Writing with Generative AI and Human-Machine Teaming: Insights and Recommendations from Faculty and Students.” Computers and Composition, vol. 71, Mar 2024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102833.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Bjork Collin. “Extractive AI and Its Challenge to Technical Communication.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10June 2025 https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519251348462.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Colton Jared S., and Holmes Steve. Rhetoric, Technology, and the Virtues. Utah State UP 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Condon William, and Kelly-Riley Diane. “Assessing and Teaching What We Value: The Relationship Between College-Level Writing and Critical Thinking Abilities.” Assessing Writing, vol. 9, no. 1 2004, pp 56–75.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Conference on College Composition and Communication. “Principles for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing.” Conference on College Composition and Communication, November 2023, https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/postsecondarywriting/.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Council of Writing Program Administrators. WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition (3.0), Approved July 17, 2014. 18July 2019 https://wpacouncil.org/aws/CWPA/pt/sd/news_article/243055/_PARENT/layout_details/false. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Crawford Kate. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale UP 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Cryer Daniel. “To Use AI or Not to Use AI? A Student’s Burden.” Inside Higher Ed, 9Dec 2024, https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2024/12/09/ai-shifts-respon-sibility-academic-integrity-opinion. Accessed 25 Apr. 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Cummings Robert E., et al. “Generative AI in First-Year Writing: An Early Analysis of Affordances, Limitations, and a Framework for the Future.” Computers and Composition, vol. 71, Mar 2024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102827.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Duffy John. Provocations of Virtue: Rhetoric, Ethics, and the Teaching of Writing. Utah State UP 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Edwards Dustin W. “Digital Rhetoric on a Damaged Planet: Storying Digital Damage as Inventive Response to the Anthropocene.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 39, no. 1 2020, pp 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2019.1690372.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Ellsworth Elizabeth. “Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy.” Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy, edited byLuke Carmen and Gore Jennifer, Routledge 1992, pp 90–119.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Eodice Michele, et al.The Meaningful Writing Project: Learning, Teaching, and Writing in Higher Education. Utah State UP 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Girdharry Kristi, and Khachatryan Davit. “Meaningful Writing in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence.” Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing, vol. 11 2023, pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.37514/DBH-J.2023.11.1.04.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Grossberg Lawrence. We Gotta Get Out of This Place: Popular Conservatism and Postmodern Culture. Routledge 1992.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Gupta Anuj, and Shivers-McNair Ann. “‘Wayfinding’ through the AI Wilderness: Mapping Rhetorics of ChatGPT Prompt Writing on X (Formerly Twitter) to Promote Critical AI Literacies.” Computers and Composition, vol. 74, Dec 2024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102882.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Hutchinson [Campos] Les, and Novotny Maria. “Teaching a Critical Digital Literacy of Wearables: A Feminist Surveillance as Care Pedagogy.” Computers and Composition, vol. 50, Dec 2018, pp 105–20. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2018.07.006.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Katz Steven B. “The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust.” College English, vol. 54, no. 3 1992, pp 255–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/378062.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Lave Jean and Wenger Etienne. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge UP 1991.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Lin Xi, et al., editors. ChatGPT and Global Higher Education: Using Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning. Star Scholars Press 2024 https://doi.org/10.32674/rh27qv16.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Major Katy, and Chiarelott Clay. “Slow Down: Generative AI, Faculty Reactions, and the Role of Critical Thinking in Writing Instruction.” Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing, vol. 11 2023, pp 1–12. https://doi.org/10.37514/DBH-J.2023.11.1.03.
    [Google Scholar]
32. McElroy Erin. Silicon Valley Imperialism: Techno Fantasies and Frictions in Post socialist Times. Duke UP 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
33. MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI. Building a Culture for Generative AI Literacy in College Language, Literature, and Writing 2024, https://hcommons.org/app/uploads/sites/1003160/2024/10/MLA-CCCC-Joint-Task-Force-WP-3-Building-Culture-for-Gen-AI-Literacy-1.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Moore Tim John. Critical Thinking and Language: The Challenge of Generic Skills and Disciplinary Discourses. Continuum 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Palmquist Michael. “A Middle Way for WAC: Writing to Engage.” The WAC Journal, vol. 31 2020, pp 7–22. https://doi.org/10.37514/WAC-J.2020.31.1.01.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Paul Richard, and Elder Linda. “Critical Thinking: Ethical Reasoning and Fairminded Thinking, Part I.” Journal of Developmental Education, vol. 33, no. 1 2009, pp 38–39.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Pezzullo Phaedra C.Beyond Straw Men: Plastic Pollution and Networked Cultures of Care. U of California P 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Rademaekers Justin K. “Getting Specific about Critical Thinking: Implications for Writing Across the Curriculum.” The WAC Journal, vol. 29 2018, pp 119–46. https://doi.org/10.37514/WAC-J.2018.29.1.06.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Ross Derek G. “Introduction: Ethics in Technical and Professional Communication.” The Routledge Handbook of Ethics in Technical and Professional Communication, edited byRoss. Routledge 2025, pp 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Sano-Franchini Jennifer. “Timely, (Un) Disciplinary, and Solutions-Oriented: Remembering and Enacting Abundance in These Times When We Just Have to Keep Going.” Conference on College Composition and Communication, Baltimore, Maryland, 10Apr 2025, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d-LaO7oMoWFBcXgjoyylD0FRqrB1jQZMq9NttPfZOKY/edit?tab=t.0. Accessed 28 Apr. 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Sano-Franchini Jennifer, et al. “Refusing Generative AI in Writing Studies: A Quickstart Guide.” Refusing Generative AI in Writing Studies, https://refusinggenai.wordpress.com/. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Selber Stuart A.Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Southern Illinois UP 2004.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Shor Ira. “What Is Critical Literacy?” Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism, and Practice, vol. 1, no. 4 1999, pp 2–32.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Vee Annette, et al., editors. TextGenEd: Teaching with Text Generation Technologies. WAC Clearinghouse 2023 https://doi.org/10.37514/TWR-J.2023.1.1.02.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Vetter Matthew A., et al. “Towards a Framework for Local Interrogation of AI Ethics: A Case Study on Text Generators, Academic Integrity, and Composing with ChatGPT.” Computers and Composition, vol. 71, March 2024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102831.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Vieira Kate, et al. “Literacy is a Sociohistoric Phenomenon with the Potential to Liberate and Oppress.” (Re) Considering What We Know: Learning Thresholds in Writing, Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy, edited byAdler-Kassner Linda and Wardle Elizabeth, Utah State UP 2019, pp 36–55.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Wilkes Lydia. “AI Can Write Without Damaging the Environment.” Bad Ideas about AI and Writing: Toward Generative Practices for Teaching, Learning, and Communication, edited byBasgier Christopheret al.The WAC Clearinghouse, n.d. Forthcoming.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Wilkes Lydia. “Some Ethical Considerations for Teaching and Generative AI in Higher Education.” Teaching and Generative AI: Pedagogical Possibilities and Productive Tensions, edited byBuyserie Beth and Thurston Travis N., Utah State U Libraries 2024, https://uen.pressbooks.pub/teachingandgenerativeai/chapter/some-ethical-consider-ations-for-teaching-and-generative-ai-in-higher-education/.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Wilkes Lydia. “Writing Wisely with Water in a Time of Generative AI and Climate Crisis.” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 7. Parlor Press/WAC Clearinghouse, n.d. Forthcoming.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Wilkes Lydia. Writing with Generative AI.” Core Composition Program, Department of English, Auburn University, https://aub.ie/wilkes-writing-with-gen-ai.
51. Winkelmes Mary-Ann. “Transparency in Teaching: Faculty Share Data and Improve Students’ Learning.” Liberal Education, vol. 99, no. 2 2013, pp 48–55.
    [Google Scholar]