International Conference Hall III<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Harris Bras, Masakazu Mishima, Mira Baker, Mei-Hung Lin<\/p>\n\n\n\n This discussion session explores how generative AI is reshaping feedback practices in L2 writing classrooms. Drawing on three classroom-based studies, presenters examine teacher\u2013AI co-assessment, student perceptions of AI-assisted feedback, and the role of prompt literacy. Participants will discuss practical strategies for integrating AI while maintaining teacher agency and supporting student learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Ida Klitg\u00e5rd<\/p>\n\n\n\n This discussion explores whether group project writing can preserve meaningful agency in AI-mediated L2 contexts. Using Roskilde University\u2019s Problem-Oriented Project Learning model as an example, it examines how relational pedagogy may counter cognitive off-loading, surveillance-based teaching and shifting epistemic authority in increasingly automated writing environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 3 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Angela Feekery, Kennedy Olivia<\/p>\n\n\n\n This session invites educators to explore how we can teach language learners to engage with AI tools as springboards for deeper learning rather than using them as shortcuts that weaken language development and proficiency. The question at the centre of this conversation is: How can we train students learning a foreign language to engage with LLMs and AI translation tools meaningfully and ethically to inform their learning without them building dependency that hinders written language development?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Hannah Dostal, Kimberly Wolbers, Leala Holcomb<\/p>\n\n\n\n This discussion session invites participants to examine how deaf secondary writers are positioned within second language writing research and pedagogy. After a brief overview of research findings and sample texts, attendees will engage in a guided discussion about translanguaging, modality, instructional design, and systemic considerations shaping the teaching and interpretation of deaf students\u2019 writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 5 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Ashton E. Dawes, Kathryn Jurns<\/p>\n\n\n\n This roundtable argues for maintaining the human dimension of writing through communicative and peer review approaches. It begins with a presentation on a new edited volume focused on cultivating students\u2019 confidence in discussing writing, followed by a group discussion on peer review training, current practices, and ongoing research in the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 6 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Gavin O\u2019Neill<\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to clarify how GenAI should and should not be used in source-based writing, the knowledge and skills required for such writing must first be defined. This presentation introduces an operationalization of source-based writing, tested with a diverse sample of graduate students and proposed as a framework for instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Emi Hennessy<\/p>\n\n\n\n How can generative AI support beginner EFL writers without replacing their thinking? This roundtable shares classroom research of Japanese university students and explores using AI as a dialogic partner in self-editing. Participants will discuss practical ways to design AI-supported writing tasks that promote interaction, reflection, and learner agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 8 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Carol Severino<\/p>\n\n\n\n This presentation uses narrative inquiry in two mixed settings\u2014a Writing in the Disciplines course and Dissertation Summer Camp\u2014to reflect on: 1) the similarities vs. differences between international E.A.L. and U.S. native-English-speaking graduate students\u2019 experiences; and 2) the most caring stance on that debate to communicate to international students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 9 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Manuel Senna IV<\/p>\n\n\n\n What do writing teachers do now? AI hasn\u2019t come for our jobs (yet), but it has impacted the way students see us as figures of authority. This discussion explores how AI is reshaping SLW instructor roles by redistributing and complicating authority and professional identity in the L2 classroom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International Conference Hall III<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Julie Goldman<\/p>\n\n\n\n This session examines how K\u201312 educators foster humanity\u2011centered, second\u2011language writing amid rising AI use. Drawing on a 2024 U.S. Department of State early\u2011literacy project in Leyte, Philippines, and California classrooms, it highlights a framework emphasizing belonging, mastery, reflection, and community\u2011connected learning in an AI\u2011mediated educational landscape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Kenny Harsch<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several recent articles have highlighted how Global Englishes (GE) perspectives can improve L2 writing instruction. Examples include GE-influenced rubrics and feedback, awareness of journals\u2019 English-language submission policies, and combining GE content with genre awareness in writing courses. Participants will discuss how to operationalize these concepts in their teaching practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 3 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Eunjeong Lee, Kh\u00e1nh L\u00ea, Trish Morita-Mullaney, Diep Nguyen<\/p>\n\n\n\n This discussion session aims to offer a space for critical reflections on GenAI in relation to what it means and takes to create humanizing conditions in which we and our students teach and learn writing in\/as multilingual bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Todd Ruecker, Aly Welker<\/p>\n\n\n\n This discussion session examines the complexities of AI use among L2 writers in \u201cmainstream\u201d writing classrooms in the U.S. The facilitators will speak from their own teaching experiences, sharing insights from classroom policy discussions and student AI-assisted writing samples, and engage attendees in a discussion on challenging questions that arise around AI use among L2 students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 5 | Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Robert MacIntyre<\/p>\n\n\n\n This presentation discusses the use of learner corpora to teach the features of metadiscourse in academic writing. Although metadiscourse is a popular area of research (Hyland, 2017), there has been less attention confirmed to how to teach this important aspect of communication at the university level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 6 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> John Bankier<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study compares whether teachers, AI checkers and large language models can distinguish text produced by real L2 writers from that generated by an LLM (ChatGPT) or translation software (DeepL). The presentation will focus on production of texts, coding of the survey using AI, and insights from a pilot survey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Masakazu Mishima<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study examines how learner agency is structurally patterned in a project-based CLIL course integrating generative AI. Using survey data analyzed through exploratory PCA, three dimensions emerged: productive\u2013collaborative, analytical\u2013critical, and expressive\u2013ownership agency. Findings suggest digital tools redistribute rather than diminish agency, reshaping autonomy, authorship, and participation in technology-mediated language learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 8 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Catherine LeBlanc, Sara L. Schipper<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethical concerns regarding AI use in writing often overlook student voices. This presentation addresses this issue by investigating university learners\u2019 use and perceptions of AI across gender. The researchers will report findings from a mixed-methods survey and make recommendations allowing for more inclusive learning experiences in the age of AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International Conference Hall III<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Daniel Isbell, Ching-Ni Hsieh, Renka Ohta<\/p>\n\n\n\n To assess writing proficiency, the TOEFL iBT now features an efficient test task called Build a Sentence alongside extended writing tasks. We investigate the relationships between Build a Sentence task scores and performance on the retired TOEFL Integrated Writing task and self-assessments of writing ability among 150 examinees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Lynn Ishikawa<\/p>\n\n\n\n This roundtable examines the practice of directed self-placement and challenges the primacy of student agency in placement decisions, arguing that such primacy undermines the notion that writing skill takes time to develop and risks ignoring students\u2019 need for academic support at a time when such support is critical to development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 3 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Seth Tendler<\/p>\n\n\n\n This roundtable explores how multilingual writers negotiate voice in AI-supported first-year composition. Drawing on classroom-based research and access-oriented pedagogy, it considers how strategies often associated with neurodivergent writing support may help L2 writers develop rhetorical agency, ownership, and revision practices without allowing AI to replace their thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Charles Kowalski<\/p>\n\n\n\n Has the universal translator of science fiction become reality? If AI can translate into any language instantly, why study second-language writing? This presentation gives 10 reasons why AI translation, though a useful labor-saving device, cannot substitute for a bilingual human. The universal translator still lives in a galaxy far away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 5 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Tuyuan Cheng<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study proposes a literacy-oriented AI writing pedagogy that uses task-based, scaffolded writing to cultivate nursing students\u2019 care and empathy. Integrating AI tools and film-based prompts, it highlights teacher agency in guiding ethical reflection and sustaining the humanity of writing instruction in the age of AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 6 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Pietera Fraser<\/p>\n\n\n\n A continuation of in-progress research presented last year, this completed study reveals how multilingual writers experience Generative AI in concert with mindfulness in EFL first year writing courses at a US branch campus in Japan. The presenter provides insight into how mindfulness influences students\u2019 relationships with Generative AI and academic writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Hui-Tzu Min, Francisco de Borja Navarro<\/p>\n\n\n\n We will report on the preliminary results of how we trained ChatGPT to provide feedback as peers that follow a 3-step procedure–identifying problems, explaining problems, and providing suggestions–and 7 quality standards, and discuss with the audience strategies for refining prompts to help students elicit quality feedback from ChatGPT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 8 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Taeko Kamimura, Gaku Uehara<\/p>\n\n\n\n A study was conducted to examine the impact of a teaching method designed to enhance Japanese EFL students\u2019 ability to produce effective argumentative essays by promoting the use of more objective reasoning and generic second-person pronouns. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses demonstrated the positive effects of the instructional intervention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International Conference Hall III<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Joseph Wilson, Xiqiao Wang<\/p>\n\n\n\n This roundtable examines writing as entangled with material ecologies, centering ethnographic research with two second language writers: Ke, composing amid ecological consequences of labor migration in rural China, and Zere, a Qazaq student shaped by Soviet nuclear contamination and language reclamation efforts in Qazaqstan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Yuka Ohkishima, Aiko Sano<\/p>\n\n\n\n Generative AI is reshaping L2 written feedback, yet learners\u2019 revision processes remain underexplored. This case study shows ChatGPT increased feedback uptake but reduced reflective decision-making, while Grammarly promoted deeper engagement and learner ownership. Findings suggest different AI feedback types differentially affect cognitive processing and agency in L2 writing revision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 3 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Mark Dressman, Utkarsh Jajodia, Ayoub El Mohamedi<\/p>\n\n\n\n Students and their instructor from an Indian business school describe how students\u2019 backgrounds as informal English learners and avid users of AI were key to revising Business English for classes of 90 students, using project-based small group learning, open uses of AI, and in-class workshops monitored by the instructor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Ming-i Lydia Tseng<\/p>\n\n\n\n Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is a rapidly emerging technology with the capability to construct responses to user prompts. Such a technology has transformed the L2 writing field. This study focuses on integration of humanity, professional judgment, and human agency in GenAI Digital Multimodal Composing (DMC) practices by using ecological professional development framework for L2 teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 5 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Camilo Villanueva<\/p>\n\n\n\n Literature is re-emerging in L2 education despite limited classroom use. This study examined 25 EFL students\u2019 perceptions of short stories in a creative writing course using language-based and reader-response approaches. Pre- and post-surveys showed improved attitudes toward reading, writing, listening, and cultural awareness, supporting integration of literary texts in writing instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 6 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Thao Le<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study explores how teacher feedback effectiveness in L2 writing can be enhanced by applying learner profiles derived from Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency (CAF) in everyday teaching. It examines how these profiles guide focused, stage-appropriate corrective-dialogic feedback and learners\u2019 engagement across feedback and revision cycles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Jiahao Zheng<\/p>\n\n\n\n This Q-methodology study explores 20 EFL graduate learners’ metacognitive experiences using GenAI in writing. It identifies three profiles: boundary-conscious editors, prompt-driven writers, and efficiency-oriented collaborators. Collectively, students view GenAI as a conditional scaffold, rather than surrendering their writer agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 8 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Daniel G. Dusza<\/p>\n\n\n\n This roundtable discusses the emergence of AI-mediated Digital Multimodal Composing (DMC) as a form of digital literacy and how it redefines communicative and cognitive development among writers, teachers, and technologies. Academic argument-essay data will be presented to investigate corrective feedback in AI interactions for improving texts and developing writers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 9 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Hoa Thi Vinh Le, Nicole Ziegler, Lara Bryfonski, Meg Montee<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study examines willingness-to-communicate (WTC) in L2 writing within task-based instruction. Using a time-series mixed-methods design with Vietnamese learners (N=37), results show increased WTC and writing performance over time. WTC predicted performance only when operationalized as a trait-like variable, and there were no significant effects for task type.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International Conference Hall III<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Silvia VaccinoSalvadore, Anoud Abusalim<\/p>\n\n\n\n As generative AI (GenAI) enters EMI university classrooms in the UAE, L2 writing teachers must renegotiate their professional identities. Drawing on interviews with writing instructors, this study examines how teachers negotiate GenAI\u2019s influence on expertise, authority, and responsibility while supporting multilingual writers. Findings highlight the continued importance of human judgment and care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Peiyun Liu<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critical AI literacy (CAIL), extending beyond AI literacy, empowers L2 writers to navigate ethical, cultural, and linguistic tensions inherent in human-AI interaction. This qualitative study of 12 Chinese EFL learners using ChatGPT explores CAIL enactment, influenced by proficiency and context, highlighting varied patterns and implications in AI-mediated writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 3 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Gusztav Demeter<\/p>\n\n\n\n This presentation showcases a first year L2 writing seminar that develops critical AI literacy through dialogic inquiry and scaffolded tasks. Students learn to assess when AI use supports or constrains their writing, foregrounding human judgment and voice to build rhetorical responsibility, ethical awareness, and authorship in AI mediated contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Naoya Shibata, Misa Fujinuma<\/p>\n\n\n\n This presentation explores the relationship between teachers\u2019 academic writing standards and their perceptions of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) output for academic writing in Japanese English-as-a-foreign-language tertiary educational contexts. Presenters also underline the important role of human teacher judgment to help learners maintain their authorial voice in the age of GenAI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 5 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Tzu-Shan Chang<\/p>\n\n\n\n Generative AI improves efficiency and productivity in L2 writing but does not guarantee better learning outcomes. Students often overrely on it and lack reflective development. This study integrates self-regulated learning strategies to foster autonomy, enhance writing competence, reduce teacher dependence, and align AI use with metacognitive growth in L2 writing contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 6 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Rachel LaMance<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Un)inspired by students\u2019 increased AI use and decreased engagement in first-year composition, I scrapped my existing curriculum and went back to the basics. Through analyzing professional writers\u2019 reflections and interviewing non-professional writers, we explored the multiple human dimensions of writing and defended it as a worthwhile activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Nagwa Kassabgy<\/p>\n\n\n\n This action research examines how undergraduate vs. graduate students use generative AI in academic writing. Using surveys and interviews, it finds graduates apply more critical evaluation, while undergraduates need more support. The study highlights students\u2019 motivations and practices, offering pedagogical and ethical insights for effectively integrating AI into higher education writing instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 8 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Yixiao Hou<\/p>\n\n\n\n This roundtable discusses an ongoing longitudinal case study tracing how a Chinese EFL novice scholar constructs authorial voice across two English-medium publication trajectories. Drawing on drafts, reviewer feedback, writer reflection, and reader evaluation, it invites discussion on how L2 writing researchers can study voice as dialogic, developmental, and publication-mediated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 9 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Hae Chin Moon, Alexandra Elizabeth Lee<\/p>\n\n\n\n This discussion examines what remains distinctly human about the work of L2 writing teachers in the age of AI. Framed by scholarship on teacher judgment, feedback, ethics, and care, it invites participants to debate whether teacher humanity is best understood as mediation, relationship, authority, pedagogical responsibility, or something else today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International Conference Hall III<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1 | Workshop<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Peter Macdonald<\/p>\n\n\n\n This presentation outlines a teaching intervention in an academic writing class. Automatic correction tools in Google Docs were purposefully turned off and on during the writing process, while flagged errors were recorded in an \u2018error log\u2019. This pedagogical use of automatic correction may help students better learn from their mistakes while also making their learning visible to teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2 | Workshop<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Sophie McBride, Aitor Garc\u00e9s-Manzanera<\/p>\n\n\n\n This workshop showcases two AI-supported ESP writing tools developed from a student diagnostic study on digital writing and AI use. Attendees will explore\u2019CargoLink\u2019 and \u2019EduOS 3\u2019, reflect on task design and AI integration, and consider how to adapt these approaches to their own teaching contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 3 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Chris Du, Cathleen Wen Li<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study reconceptualizes translation as genre-based L2 writing and argues that translation quality depends on genre awareness and culturally situated rhetorical knowledge rather than linguistic fidelity alone. Through comparative analysis of Chinese poetry translations, it examines how multilingual writers negotiate genre expectations and proposes pedagogical implications for L2 writing instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Mark Chapman, Jieun Kim, Jason Kemp, Ahyoung Alicia Kim, Lynn Shafer Willner<\/p>\n\n\n\n The use of automated writing scoring and feedback (AWSF) in assessments is growing with the advent of generative AI tools. This study explores U.S. K-12 educators\u2019 perspectives. Overall, educators reported limited familiarity with AWSF, moderate confidence in scores, optimism for the benefits of automated feedback, but concern for linguistic bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 5 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Xiqiao Wang<\/p>\n\n\n\n This presentation draws on ethnographic data gathered in a bridge writing class at a US university to discuss the affordances of a pedagogical innovation that enacts ecological, translingual theories and integrates experiential learning, emerging technologies, and multimodal composition to encourage multilingual, transnational students\u2019 spatial entanglement with the university and the city.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 6 | Workshop<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Changdeok Gim, Junghwa Kim<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the rapid integration of generative AI into academic practices, institutional governance frameworks guiding its use across higher education remain nascent and fragmented. This gap is especially manifested at the upper-division level, where students routinely engage AI tools for academic tasks. This study examines whether current AI guidelines constitute enforceable rules, merely suggestive norms, or informal strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Andrew Barnes, Cameron Flinn, Jerrie Zhang<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study investigated whether allowing Japanese EFL students to choose the type and scope of WCF affects writing development and teacher workload. Student choice resulted in limited improvements in writing outcomes, but it reduced teacher feedback time. This suggests accommodating learner preferences may improve the sustainability of classroom feedback practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 8 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Pejman Habibie<\/p>\n\n\n\n Large language models are transforming scholarly writing. In ERPP, debates on generative AI often emphasize compliance and individual responsibility. This presentation reconceptualizes AI ethics as distributed across scholars, institutions, and infrastructures within a global knowledge economy. It examines how AI reshapes academic legitimacy, multilingual scholars\u2019 positioning, and the sociolinguistic ecology of knowledge production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International Conference Hall III<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1 | Workshop<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Karen Foltz, Junghwa Kim<\/p>\n\n\n\n This workshop examines key instructional components in inquiry-based writing and the curricular alignment between intro and advanced composition at George Mason University\u2019s Fairfax and Korea campuses. Drawing on course syllabi, student writing samples, and student reflections, the presenters discuss curricular gaps, linguistic awareness, metacognition, development, and students\u2019 reflection on AI use across the composition sequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2 | Workshop<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Yutaka Ishii, Yasuyo Sawaki, Yumi Fujita<\/p>\n\n\n\n This workshop introduces an online writing module, W-Writing, designed for Learning-Oriented Assessment (LOA). The module aims to promote learners\u2019 engagement with feedback and the development of summary writing skills. We outline its theoretical rationale and demonstrate how LOA principles are operationalized in the automated feedback design to facilitate revisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 3 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Anne Ediger, Mark Romig<\/p>\n\n\n\n Addressing a lack of research on effective vocabulary feedback in writing, we discuss a hierarchy based on word knowledge that helps teachers move from simple corrective feedback to tailored, instructive feedback. Participants will leave with a deeper understanding of word knowledge and a jointly-developed plan for developing teachers\u2019 knowledge base.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Neda Sahranavard<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study explores how integrating multimodal, student-selected materials in online Persian courses enhances writing skills, engagement, and community. Through journaling, multimedia narratives, and collaborative assignments, learners connect language tasks to personal experiences, develop digital literacy, and affirm their multicultural identities. Findings highlight the effectiveness of student-centered, inclusive approaches in language instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 5 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Ju Chuan (Cindy) Huang<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adopting a reflective practice approach, the presenter examined her own feedback practices as a graduate adviser, addressing students\u2019 use of AI in thesis writing. Drawing on Zhai\u2019s (2025) framework of evolving teacher roles, this study will illustrate how the presenter\u2019s identity evolves as the focus of her feedback shifts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 6 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> George Hays<\/p>\n\n\n\n This presentation examines how Tokyo International University\u2019s Peer Advisers for Writing (PAW) complement writing teachers by providing distinct peer-to-peer support for L2 writers. It explores how peer advisors extend the humanity of writing instruction through unique relational dynamics, offering a different form of support that enriches the ecosystem of human guidance in the age of AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 7 | Workshop<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Prumel Barbudo<\/p>\n\n\n\n This workshop presents IMPAR\u00b3 as a purposefully-designed teaching framework developed for low-proficiency EFL writers. Framed as a recursive genre ecology linking writing and speaking, it draws on systemic functional linguistics and genre-based pedagogy to demonstrate how structured re-engagement with genre staging and cross-modal retelling supports sustained improvement in writing performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 8 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Jasleen Kaur<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study investigates how Hindi-speaking L2 learners of English develop writing proficiency with AI tools. Through a mixed-methods approach involving classroom observations, teacher interviews, and student writing samples, we explore pedagogical strategies that balance technology use with humanistic teaching practices in Indian educational contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 9 | Roundtable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenters:<\/strong> Sharona Moskowitz, Christine Rosalia<\/p>\n\n\n\nHuman\u2013AI collaboration in L2 writing feedback: Teacher agency, student perceptions, and prompt literacy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Can group project writing preserve meaningful student and teacher agency in the age of AI?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Exercising your language muscles: Effective, ethical AI use for second language learning<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Translanguaging, modality, and deaf writers: A guided discussion of secondary students\u2019 writing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Issues in peer review and communication: Practices for cultivating confidence in L2 writing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What is source-based writing? Defining the required knowledge and skills to guide source-based writing in the age of AI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Using generative AI as a dialogic partner for self-editing in beginner EFL writing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Reflecting on the similarities and differences between the graduate school experiences of international EAL and US native-English-speaking students<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What do writing teachers do now?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nSaturday, October 24, 2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1:20 pm – 1:50 pm | Roundtables and Discussions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Belonging, mastery, and machine intelligence in K\u201312 second\u2011language writing: A conversation across contexts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Operationalizing global Englishes concepts into second-language writing practices<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
GenAI and building the conditions of humanizing writing pedagogy: Critical reflections from multilingual writing educators<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Preventing AI or preventing access? Developing AI policies for linguistic justice<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The use of learner corpora to teach second language writing in the age of AI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Distinguishing human-written from machine-generated text: Comparing language teachers, AI checker apps and LLMs<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Mapping student agency in project-based CLIL: Structural patterns from an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Perceptions and usage of generative AI in academic writing across gender<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nSaturday, October 24, 2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
2:55 pm – 3:25 pm | Roundtables<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Examining the relationships between efficient test tasks on the updated TOEFL iBT and extended writing performances<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The limits of agency: Rethinking directed self-placement in the post-pandemic AI world<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Sounding like yourself: L2 writer voice, AI mediation, and access-oriented pedagogy in first-year composition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Waiting for C-3PO: The strengths and shortcomings of AI translation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A nurse\u2019s purpose: A literacy-oriented AI writing pedagogy for cultivating care and empathy through task-based EFL writing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Mindful intelligence in the age of artificial intelligence: How multilingual students experience mindfulness and AI in EFL first year writing courses<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Training ChatGPT as peers via prompt engineering<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Designing a teaching method to help Japanese EFL students produce well-supported argumentative essays<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nSaturday, October 24, 2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
3:30 pm – 4:00 pm | Roundtables<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Writing through entanglement: Ecology, translation, and transnational literacies across China and Qazaqstan<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
AI feedback and learner agency in L2 writing: A think-aloud study of revision processes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Idle in India: Large classes, business English, and AI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Reframing the humanity of the L2 writing teacher: An ecological approach to GenAI-assisted \u201cwrighting\u201d practices<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Student perceptions of using short stories in a Japanese university EFL creative writing classroom<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Enhancing teacher feedback effectiveness in L2 writing through CAF-informed learner profiles and a corrective-dialogic approach<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A Q-methodology study on EFL writers’ metacognitive experiences in GenAI-assisted writing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
AI-mediated digital multimodal composing in L2 writing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Exploring willingness to communicate and L2 writing performance: Insights from a task-based assessment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nSaturday, October 24, 2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
4:05 pm – 4:34 pm | Roundtables<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The humanity of writing teachers: (Re)negotiating identity in AI-mediated EMI L2 writing classrooms<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Patterns of human\u2013AI interaction in L2 writing: A critical AI literacy perspective<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Developing critical AI literacy and rhetorical agency in a first year writing seminar for second language writers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The relationship between writing teachers\u2019 academic writing norms and their perceptions of generative artificial intelligence output in Japanese English-as-a-foreign-language tertiary educational contexts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Supporting L2 writing development through self-regulated learning in a GenAI-assisted classroom<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Back to the basics: Exploring why we write in a composition class<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Undergraduate vs. graduate students\u2019 use of AI: Why and how<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Beyond metadiscourse markers: Tracing the dialogic construction of authorial voice in a Chinese EFL novice scholar\u2019s publication trajectories<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What remains human about the L2 writing teacher in the age of AI?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nSunday, October 25, 2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
12:45 pm – 1:15 pm | Roundtables and Workshops<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Learning from mistakes: Error logs and purposeful use of automatic correction tools<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
From diagnosis to design: Integrating AI into ESP writing through situated classroom tools<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Translation as genre-based L2 writing: Genre awareness and cultural reasoning in multilingual textual recontextualization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Educator perspectives on the fairness of automated writing scoring and feedback for young multilingual learners<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Meshing the streets of angora with the bridge of pittsburgh: Enacting ecological and translingual pedagogy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Rules, norms, or strategies? an institutional grammar and LLM-based analysis of university AI policies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Student choice in written corrective feedback: Effects on writing development and teacher workload in a Japanese EFL context<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Beyond compliance: GAI and the sociolinguistic ecology of academic knowledge production<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nSunday, October 25, 2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1:20 pm – 1:50 pm | Roundtables and Workshops<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Re-envisioning analogue for critical thinking, revision, and reflection in the age of AI: Connecting first year and advanced composition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Design and implementation of an online writing module for learning-oriented assessment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Shifting paradigms to assets-based, corrective feedback on vocabulary in writing: A hierarchy for developing teacher candidates\u2019 word knowledge<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Enhancing persian writing in online classrooms through multimodal, student-centered instruction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
From corrector to coordinator: Evolving teacher identities and feedback practices in the era of generative AI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The human touch in peer writing support: Evolution of the PAW program at Tokyo International University in the age of AI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
IMPAR\u00b3 as a teacher-designed recursive genre ecology in L2 writing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
On the development of writing proficiency in hindi-speaking learners in the age of AI: A teacher-centric approach from indian classrooms<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The use of AI in college writing and learner moral self-image: Does language background play a role?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n