Report from IWCA GenAI Task Force: Initial Findings and Opportunities to Get Involved

Over the summer, IWCA charged a task force on generative AI that mirrors and expands the work of the MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI. Although joint task force member Sarah Z Johnson and then IWCA president Sherry Wynn Perdue helped craft the newly-released Working Paper 3: Fostering a Culture of AI Literacies as a part of an NEH grant funded initiative, they quickly realized that writing center professionals were operating in spaces that require more specific guidance. The creation of this task force has several goals, but primary among them is that we provide guidance and support to writing center practitioners in the United States and worldwide.

The task force has met to establish priorities, develop and disseminate a survey, conduct listening sessions, and establish a timeline for further data collection and subsequent white papers on Generative AI. So far, we have collected preliminary data from a survey and a series of focus groups. Moreover, we are quite pleased that over 30 volunteers from diverse institutions all over the world have agreed to serve on the next phase of the task force in different capacities (read on for how to get involved). 

Over the next year, the task force will use this blog to share updates and to solicit more involvement.

Task Force Members:

• Sarah Z. Johnson, Madison College, Co-chair
• Sherry Wynn-Perdue, Oakland University, Co-chair
• Joe Essid, University of Richmond
• Genie Giaimo, Hofstra University
• Saurabh Anand, University of Georgia

TIMELINE

• Early Summer: Met to establish the mission and goals of the task force and to develop a data collection and writing plan; disseminate survey; open task force to additional members. 
• October: Ran focus groups; updated practitioners on survey findings and TF plans. Presented preliminary findings from the survey and focus groups; collected additional data during the conference.  
• Late October: Hosted a Panel at the Annual Conference. 
• November 2024 – January 2025: Draft position paper 1 (State of AI in Field of Writing Center Work Based on Survey/Qual. Data Collection?).
•  February - April: Write position paper 2 (Policies and Best Practices for AI in Writing Center Work?). Prepare a session for the IWCA Collaborative at CCCCs in Baltimore to discuss task force findings.
•  April: Meet in Baltimore, MD, during the IWCA Collaborative@CCCCs.
• Summer Institute? Provide an opportunity for WCAs to engage in AI policy, pedagogy, and practice development. Right now this is a goal, but if we have an audience of people who want this opportunity, we can make it a reality.
• Summer-Fall 2025: Complete Task Force Work(?) or focus on new dimensions of the work. 

AI SURVEY

 

The TF launched its survey in July, and as of October 21, we had collected 175 responses. Here are some preliminary data about the respondents, their institutions, and their concerns. 
 
Respondent Demographics: The initial respondent pool has the following characteristics:

• 46% faculty WCAs
• 36% staff WCAs
• 10% professional tutors
• 3% graduate tutors
• 5% undergraduate tutors

Although respondents hail from 14 countries across the globe–from Austria to the United Arab Emirates–81% are in the US, 4% are in Colombia, 4% are in Germany, 3% are in Mexico, and 3% are in Canada.
 
US respondents represent 34 states, including California (10%), Virginia (10%), Pennsylvania (6%, Texas (7%), New York (6%), North Carolina (6%), Michigan (5%), and Utah (4%).
 
All IWCA affiliates were represented. The largest contingents were drawn from the Online Writing Centers Association (22%) and the Southeastern region (19%).
 
We also found diversity in the institutions represented as follows:

• 1% secondary schools
• 13% Associates
• 3% Associate/Baccalaureate
• 18% Baccalaureate
• 21% Master Colleges and Us
• 40% Doctoral Us
• 1% Special Focus

Sixty-one percent of those institutions are public, whereas 38% are private. Schools were further distinguished in the following ways:

• 13% Religiously Affiliated
• 3% Historically Black Colleges and Universities
• 15% Hispanic Serving
• 1% Women Serving
• 4% Minority Serving

Policy Matters: When asked if their institutions have GenAI policies 56% reported “No,” 36% reported “Yes,” and 8% reported “Don’t Know.” The breakdown regarding whether their writing center had a GenAI policy was 67% “No,” 28% “Yes,” and 5% “Don’t Know.”

 
Faculty are reported as having the primary responsibility for decision making about GenAI (81%). This is in stark contrast with the department (2%), the institution (5%), student writers (3%), other (3%), and don’t know (7%).
 
Important Issues Facing Writing Centers: When respondents were asked to rank the three (3) most important issues facing writing centers about GenAI today from a list, the following three led the list:

• Students who employ GenAI rather than scheduling a writing consultation (58%)
• Knowledge needed to respond effectively (56%)
• Training (51%)

OCTOBER LISTENING SESSIONS AND IWCA PRESENTATION

 

To shape the next steps, the TF held five hour-long listening sessions with volunteers from October 7 - 18.  Not surprisingly, participants expanded on questions and concerns raised in the survey, but a few new issues came up as well that will be folded into the work of the TF. 

These preliminary findings were shared during a session of the 2024 IWCA Conference on October 25: 

 

Policy

• Institutional AI policies are so varied at this moment, with some institutions offering no guidance, others putting it back on the faculty to determine individually, or universities embracing “AI university” models and integrating it widely into daily work.
• With the above in mind, participants asked for clear rules and expectations around the use of AI in writing centers and beyond. 
• Some participants mentioned needing resources to draft their AI policies and position statements. See AI Position and Policies of the Jill and Marvin Willis Center for Writing, University of Georgia, for one example (third scroll).

Practice and Professional Development

• A best-practices guide would help colleagues struggling with pedagogical or institutional challenges related to AI adoption.
• Training programs need to be developed and shared to help tutors foster AI literacies in their centers.
• A few participants also mentioned resources, including a White Paper on AI, to address questions and concerns. They mentioned such guidance would help writing centers communicate effectively with faculty members and administrations across their campus. 

Concerns about Labor and Institutional Support

• There was wide concern over private virtual tutors from services such as Nimbus or Khan Academy being used in place of some writing-center conferences
•  Participants expressed the difficulty, as well as the special importance, of fostering AI literacies in asynchronous tutoring environments.

Implications for Multilingual Writers and International Writing Centers Initiatives

• During our listening sessions, we engaged with writing center professionals who operate in contexts involving English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). 
• Many attendees shared their feelings of being overwhelmed when dealing with the implications of AI across different languages. 
• Perspectives shared during the listening sessions highlighted the need to consider AI's broader impact on international writing center initiatives. AI extends beyond English and significantly influences writing education in foreign language programs globally.

HOW TO GET INVOLVED

 

There is still much important work to be done, and the Task Force is looking for people willing to volunteer their labor in one of the following areas:

• AI Policy Guidance Statement  
• Crowd-sourced Online Resource Repository
• Best Practices and Training/Professional Development around AI
• Research and reporting on the work of the TF

 

To volunteer to work on a TF subcommittee or otherwise contribute to the work of the Task Force, please contact TF co-chairs Sarah Z. Johnson (szjohnson@madisoncollege.edu) and Sherry Wynn Perdue (wynn@oakland.edu).