Skip to content
2018
Volume 77, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0010-096X
  • E-ISSN: 1939-9006

Abstract

In gaming, cheat codes change how players engage a system by inviting exploration and reducing the fear of failure. Drawing on writing center pedagogy, this article proposes a similar framework for navigating generative AI in writing instruction and positions play as a method for developing critical AI literacy. Writing centers have long served as spaces where students engage collaboratively with new technologies and construct meaning through dialogue. This article extends that tradition by positioning writing center pedagogy as a framework for helping students examine AI’s ethical implications through treating it as a rhetorical situation to be unpacked, which demands principled, human-centered engagement rooted in values such as collaborative exploration. By weaving together writing center praxis and game-informed pedagogy, this article contributes to ongoing conversations in writing studies about how to integrate AI in ways that support critical thinking and ethical reflection. It demonstrates how playful, classroom-tested activities can animate discussions of bias and representation while helping students build rhetorical discernment through experience. Ultimately, the article argues that ethical literacy must be practiced through relational, iterative work. As writing classrooms become one of the few remaining spaces where students encounter generative AI with support and critical context, writing instructors have a vital opportunity to help students learn to write with, against, and around powerful technologies.

© 2025 by the National Council of Teachers of English
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202577189
2025-09-01
2026-06-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikens Kristina, and Weildon Hannah. “Generative AI Tutor Education in Our Writing Center: A Slow Approach.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 1, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-9-1/generative-ai-tutor-education-in-our-writing-center-a-slow-approach/.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander Jonathan. “Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 61, no. 1 2009, pp 35–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bishop Wendy. “Bringing Writers to the Center: Some Survey Results, Surmises, and Suggestions.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, Spring/Summer 1990, pp 31–44. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43444136.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Boquet Elizabeth H.Noise from the Writing Center. Utah State UP 2002.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruffee Kenneth A. “Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” Landmark Essays on Writing Centers, edited byMurphy Christina and Law Joe, Routledge 1995, pp 87–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Buolamwini Joy. Unmasking AI: My Mission to Protect What Is Human in a World of Machines. Random House 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Carino Peter. “Computers in the Writing Center: A Cautionary History.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 19, no. 2 1999, pp 21–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheatle Joseph Nefcy. “TPR AI Special Issue Introduction: No Escaping GenAI: Confronting a New Writing Center Reality.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 2, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issue-9-2/introduction/.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark Irene Lurkis. “Collaboration and Ethics in Writing Center Pedagogy.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 9, no. 1 1988, pp 3–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark Irene Lurkis. “Leading the Horse: The Writing Center and Required Visits.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 5/6, no. 2/1, Spring/Summer 1985 and Fall/Winter 1985, pp. 31–34. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43441808.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cloghessy Ava. “Exploring the Utility of AI-Assisted Session Notes.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 2, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issue-9-2/exploring-the-utility-of-ai-assisted-session-notes/.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cons Thais Rodrigues, et al. “Tutors’ Perceptions on AI Tools and Translation at CAPA-UFPR, the First Brazilian Writing Center.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 2, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issue-9-2/tutors-perceptions-on-ai-tools-and-translation-at-capa-ufpr-the-first-brazilian-writing-center/.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Craig Jessica. “Evaluating an Interface: Metacognitive Approaches to AI and Tutoring.” Center Moves, no. 3, Spring 2025, https://rmwca.wildapricot.org/page-18249,
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Crull Chloe V. R. “Writer Agency and Ownership in the Era of Generative AI.” Center Moves, no. 3, Spring 2025, https://rmwca.wildapricot.org/page-18250.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Davis Matthew, and Taczak Kara. “Editors’ Introduction: A Usable Past to Re/Imagine the Future.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 76, no. 3, Feb 2025, pp 360–69. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc2025763360.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Denny Melody. “Roleplaying with GenAI.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 1, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-9-1/roleplaying-with-genai/.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dvorak Kevin, and Bruce Shanti, editors. Creative Approaches to Writing Center Work. Hampton P 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Forbes Lisa K. “The Process of Play in Learning in Higher Education: A Phenomenological Study.” Journal of Teaching and Learning, vol. 15, no. 1 2021, pp 57–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gebers Teresa, et al. “Reclaiming the Writing Process: Tutoring for Survivance and Sovereignty in the Era of GenAI.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 2, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issue-9-2/reclaiming-the-writing-process-tutoring-for-survivance-and-sovereignty-in-the-era-of-genai/.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Geller Anne Ellen, et al.The Everyday Writing Center: A Community of Practice. Utah State UP 2007.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Giaimo Genie N. “TPR AI Special Issue Introduction: Two Years on from Generative AI.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 1, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-9-1/tpr-ai-special-issue-introduction-two-years-on-from-generative-ai/.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 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 doi:10.37514/DBH‑J.2023.11.1.04.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Girdharry Kristi, and Wynstra Beth. “Embodying Rhetoric: Quick Scripts and ‘Acts’ of Persuasion.” TextGenEd: Continuing Experiments, edited bySchnitzler Carlyet al., The WAC Clearinghouse 2024, https://doi.org/10.37514/TWR-J.2024.2.1.01.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Harris Muriel. Teaching One-to-One: The Writing Conference. The WAC Clearinghouse 2015, https://wac.colostate.edu/books/landmarks/harris/. Originally published in 1986 by the National Council of Teachers of English.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Harris Muriel, and Pemberton Michael. “Online Writing Labs (OWLS): A Taxonomy of Options and Issues.” Computers and Composition, vol. 12, no. 2 1995, pp 145–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Jackson J. A. “Interfacing the Faceless: Maximizing the Advantages of Online Tutoring.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, vol. 25 2000, pp 1–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jiang Jialei, and Vetter Matthew A.. “Addressing the Challenges and Opportunities of a Feminist Rhetorical Approach for Wikipedia-Based Writing Instruction in First-Year Composition.” Composition Forum, vol. 45, Fall 2020, https://compositionforum.com/issue/45/feminist-wikipedia.php.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kimball Sara. “Cybertext/Cyberspeech: Writing Centers and Online Magic.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 18 1997, pp 30–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lundin Isabelle. “Emotional Nuance and Tension Present in Writing Center Tutors’ Perceptions of AI.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 2, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issue-9-2/emotional-nuance-and-tension-present-in-writing-center-tutors-perceptions-of-ai/.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lunsford Andrea. “Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 12, no. 1 1991, pp 3–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Noble Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York UP 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Palmquist Mike. “A Brief History of Computer Support for Writing Centers and Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Programs.” Computers and Composition, vol. 20, no. 4, Dec 2003, pp 395–413.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Partida Maria. “Empowering Tutors for the Future: Navigating GAI to Elevate Student Writing.” Center Moves, no. 3, Spring 2025, https://rmwca.wildapricot.org/page-18247.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Peabody Lisa Eastmond. “Preserving the Rhetorical Nature of Writing Centers When Going Online.” Inscape Journal, 11Feb 2022, https://inscape.byu.edu/2022/02/11/preserving-the-rhetorical-nature-of-writing-centers-when-going-online/.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Pemberton Michael A. “Planning for Hypertexts in the Writing Center … Or Not.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, Fall/Winter 2003, pp 9–24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43442187.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Pruneda Senties Felipe, et al. “Snapshots from Before a Revolution: A Talking Picture Book about AI in the Hendrix College Writing Center.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 1, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-9-1/snapshots-from-before-the-revolution-gauging-a-writing-centers-climate-prior-to-adopting-artificial-intelligence-policies/.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Ryan Holly, and Vie Stephanie, editors. Unlimited Players: The Intersections of Writing Center and Game Studies. Utah State UP 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Salem Lori. “Decisions … Decisions: Who Chooses to Use the Writing Center?” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 35, no. 2, Spring/Summer 2016, pp 147–71. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43824060.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Sano-Franchini Jenniferet al. “Refusing GenAI in Writing Studies: A Quickstart Guide.” Nov 2024, https://refusinggenai.wordpress.com.
  40. Sherwood Steve. “Computers and Writing Centers: A Selected Bibliography.” Wiring the Writing Center, edited byHobson Eric H., Utah State UP 1998, https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/usupress_pubs/123.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Short Lauren J. “Moving Past Policing: How Baylor University’s Writing Center Is Responding to Tutor Concerns About AI Use in Student Writing.” The Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 2, Spring 2025, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issue-9-2/moving-past-policing-how-baylor-universitys-writing-center-is-responding-to-tutor-concerns-about-ai-use-in-student-writing/.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Sidoti Oliviaet al. “About a Quarter of U.S. Teens Have Used ChatGPT for Schoolwork - Double the Share in 2023.” Pew Research Center, 15Jan 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/15/about-a-quarter-of-us-teens-have-used-chatgpt-for-schoolwork-double-the-share-in-2023/.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Vetter Matthew A., et al. “Wikipedia’s Gender Gap and Disciplinary Praxis: Representing Women Scholars in Digital Rhetoric and Writing Fields.” The Journal of Multimodal Rhetorics, vol. 2, no. 2 2018, https://journalofmultimodalrhetorics.com/8-2-article-vetter-et-al.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Wells Jaclyn. “Why We Resist ‘Leading the Horse’: Required Tutoring, RAD Research, and Our Writing Center Ideals.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 35, no. 2, Spring/Summer 2016, pp 87–114. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43824058.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, https://wac.colostate.edu/wln/.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Yancey Kathleen Blake. “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 56, no. 2, Dec 2004, pp 297–328. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4140651.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202577189
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test