My pedagogy has long been shaped by a commitment to process, collaboration, rhetoric, genre, writing transfer, and student agency. Ultimately, though, what is most important to me is responding to the changing needs of my students and the changing contexts in which they learn. In the context of our digital and AI-infused world, information and AI literacies play an increasingly important role—at the same time that I embrace what I would describe as a human-centered pedagogy, in which human interactions are central to learning. Students tell me again and again how much they value the conversations we have about their writing, from workshops with peers to conferences with me. As human beings, we often need audiences for our writing. We benefit from hearing reader responses and discussing our writing with others. We improve through receiving and applying feedback about our writing. Human connection—when others respond to our writing with empathy, interest, shared experiences, or questions—helps inspire us to keep writing and learning. Generative AI technologies can certainly provide some of this, but they can’t replace the human element. And so, in this current moment, I strive to balance a pedagogy that supports student learning about AI writing technologies with a pedagogy that centers human connection, perspectives, and lived experiences.

Writing Transfer and Rhetorical Awareness

My course designs are informed by writing transfer theory and genre and rhetoric studies, and in this AI-driven moment, these pedagogies have taken on particular relevance. I frame what we do together in my writing classes as practice in understanding new writing situations and tailoring our writing to those situations. I incorporate lessons about genre and rhetorical context throughout the semester and encourage students to consider when and how they might use skills they’ve practiced in the future. I’m finding genre- and rhetoric-based pedagogies particularly important in the age of generative AI. While these tools can produce polished-sounding text, they often misunderstand the rhetorical context in ways that hinder not just learning but also the effectiveness of students’ written communication. Whether or not students turn to AI for help, analyzing a rhetorical situation and tailoring text appropriately to audience, purpose, genre, and context are becoming increasingly essential skills.

Process and Collaboration

I emphasize reading, research, and writing as processes, and in the context of generative AI, I am increasingly focusing on what scholars Elizabeth Ligon Bjork and Robert Bjork call “desirable difficulties.” Writing is at heart a form of thinking, and we rob ourselves of the opportunity to grow as critical and creative thinkers when we skip reading and writing processes in favor of an “instant” final product. While I have historically scaffolded assignments to support student learning, my courses are now more heavily scaffolded and are designed so that engaging in the process of reading and writing is valued as much as the final product. I have also increased the time we spend in class on reading and writing, so that students have support for getting started in a communal setting, along with instructor assistance as needed and practice discussing feedback through human interaction.

I value active and collaborative learning methods, not only because research consistently shows they are among the most effective ways of learning but also because of the moment we are in—so many of our interactions are increasingly digital and lack human-to-human connection. I use a light version of the flipped classroom so that the majority of time in my in-person classes can be spent on group, partner, and individual activities and on in-class writing. For example, when preparing to synthesize sources, we collaboratively create a digital synthesis matrix, which not only helps students understand the synthesis process but also makes for an engaging class activity. In online classes, I increasingly use practices like social annotation, voice/audio replies, and peer responses to writing. I also incorporate required instructor conferences by phone or Zoom to build human-to-human connection into these teaching contexts.

Belonging, Support, and Trauma-Informed Teaching

I work hard to create a classroom environment in which students feel a sense of belonging. In my experience, when students feel comfortable being themselves, valued for who they are, and connected to their peers, they are more likely to learn, persist, and be successful. This is especially true in writing courses given that writing can sometimes feel vulnerable. This sense of belonging is perhaps even more critical in our current moment, in which mental health distress among college students continues to rise, and students contend with rapid technological change, shifts in the workforce, and financial uncertainties. Trauma-informed and belonging-based teaching practices help create a more productive learning environment for everyone, empowering students to share their varied perspectives and experiences, take risks, and build community.

Through past advocacy work and study of trauma-informed pedagogies, I have developed a trauma-informed teaching approach, which for me means being aware of how traumatic experiences may affect students’ behavior and decisions and practicing compassion while also holding students accountable. I have found that this approach makes me a more effective teacher in general. That is, while not everyone has experienced trauma, most of us have experienced difficulties, stressors, and setbacks, and a trauma-informed approach helps me support students during challenging times in their lives so that they may focus on learning and achieve their goals. For me, a trauma-informed approach includes things like active listening, setting clear expectations for the course and our learning community, checking in with students to offer support, and connecting them as needed to campus and community resources. When students are not meeting expectations, I have conversations with them about what may be happening and do my best to support them while still holding them to course expectations.

Support in Practice

Sometimes, simply sharing with a student that I’m worried about them, asking how they’re doing, and listening attentively is all it takes to help a student get back on track. This is not just because there’s power in being heard and cared about, but also because there’s often a story behind the decision or behavior I’ve observed. Once I understand what may be happening, I am better positioned to help. For instance, maybe the student was struggling with a reading assignment, and they mention that they do better when they can listen to texts being read aloud; I can then show them how to convert text to audio files in our LMS and annotate a text while listening. Maybe the student is a parent who is taking care of a sick child, and I can help by sharing slides for the class they’ll miss or meeting with them via Zoom to go over a concept they’re unsure about. Or maybe they’ve been absent from class and share that they don’t have enough money to pay for transportation, in which case I can help connect them to someone at campus support services. Whatever the situation, I’m showing students I care, treating them with kindness, and helping them think through solutions so that they can focus on their learning and be successful in the course.

Feedback, Assessment, and Student Agency

My assessment practices reflect my commitment to process-oriented, collaborative, human-centered approaches to learning. For example, in my comments on student writing, I respond first as an interested reader, sharing what I understand the writing to be about and what I appreciate or find compelling before offering suggestions or posing questions for further development. I consider my responses to their writing an important element of the relationship we are building. I want them to know their ideas are valued and to feel inspired to revise and polish their writing. I also conference with students about writing project drafts and approach these conversations as opportunities to collaborate with them on their writing. Our discussions are based on students’ own writing goals, and depending on the student’s needs, we might work through specific passages of a paper or think through their writing choices together. While final drafts are graded according to rubric criteria, the reading and writing processes students engage in to develop those drafts are graded for completion. I find that this approach lessens the pressure and stress students sometimes associate with reading and writing, allows for more experimentation and risk-taking during the writing process, and helps students build confidence in their skills.

Information and AI Literacies

I have long emphasized information literacy in my courses, teaching students how to evaluate sources of information and make decisions about which sources to trust given the context. Since the advent of generative AI (GenAI) in 2023, I have expanded my approach to what would now be best described as critical AI literacy, which scholars Basgier and Wilkes define as including “the ability to identify and mitigate the risks and harms of GenAI technologies…and make ethically sound judgments about when, how, why, and to what extent to use them.” I teach students to understand how AI works (in a basic sense), provide opportunities for them to read, discuss, and write about experts’ perspectives on AI and learning, share prompts for tutoring-style help, and give them practice evaluating AI output. My goal is for students to think critically about their use of AI in the context of learning and to evaluate AI output, much as they have learned to evaluate other sources of information. I also want them to be prepared to make these decisions outside of academia. I am finding that, given the relevance and timeliness of the topic, students find it meaningful to read and write about generative AI.

Accessibility, OER, and Multimodal Learning

I work hard to make my courses accessible. Whenever possible, I use Open Educational Resources (OER), which help make my classes more affordable for my students while also allowing me to carefully tailor materials to my students and to the moment, meaning I can pivot quickly to newly published material relevant to student learning. In both synchronous and asynchronous contexts, my lessons incorporate multiple presentation and learning methods in order to meet the needs of diverse learners. For example, in an onsite class where the topic is counterargument, I might provide and discuss a few slides on the concept, show a brief, closed-captioned video, lead students in a practice exercise, ask them to brainstorm counterarguments with a partner, and then ask them to draft the beginning of a counterargument for an upcoming paper so that I can give them direct feedback as they work. Such a lesson is carefully scaffolded, presents information in multiple modes—mini-lecture, text/slides, images, and video—and gives students a chance to digest and practice the material in multiple ways: class activity, partner work, individual writing. In a class session like this, students apply and receive feedback on their work before they leave class. These varied approaches to learning, which build toward application, help more students learn and learn more deeply.