Volume 22, Issue 3/4

Published January 6, 2026

Introduction to Volume 22, Issue 3/4
Michael J. Cripps
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2026.22.3-4.01

Featured Articles:

Faculty Expectations for Expert vs. Upper-Level Undergraduate Academic Writing
Alisa Russell
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2026.22.3-4.02

This article explores the role of upper-level undergraduate student writing as a phase of enculturation into disciplinary ways of knowing and doing. Much of the writing assigned in upper-level major/minor courses are intended to act as transitional genres that both mimic and abstract academic genres of the discipline. Because faculty define this phase of enculturation based on what they assign and how they assess, this article draws on 47 faculty interviews across 19 departments to compare, in faculty’s words, the characteristics of academic writing expected of experts vs. undergraduate students in upper-level major/minor courses. Overall, this article articulates faculty expectations for undergraduate student writing in upper-level major/minor courses; contributes to our collective understanding of how academic writing is socially recognized, including the consistencies and variations across disciplines; and validates undergraduate student writing as an essential phase toward disciplinary enculturation while offering WAC/WPA administrators ideas for faculty development in navigating this phase, especially around the themes of (a) motivation, (b) process, and (c) imitation.

STEM Gets Personal: The Medical School Personal Statement as Developmental Writing Opportunity Amid Generative AI
Faith Kurtyka
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2026.22.3-4.03

The rise of AI writing has contributed to worries about the personal statement in medical admissions, including questioning if the personal statement should still be part of applications at all. This manuscript argues that the medical school personal statement remains a significant developmental writing opportunity for STEM students. I first situate the personal statement historically by discussing the medical field’s discomfort with subjectivity, which I connect to students’ view that there is one right way to write a personal statement. Then I present data from 12 interviews with students who had written a personal statement for medical school in the last six months. I analyze these students’ existing knowledge about the personal statement and accordingly, offer pedagogical opportunities and interventions rooted in this knowledge. My research assistants and I put this pedagogy into practice in a writing group over the course of fall 2023, and so I also share this process and the writing group’s outcomes and feedback. Ultimately, I argue that the personal statement is valuable amid the rise of generative AI because the writing of the personal statement, especially when working in a trusted group and using solid writing pedagogy, can be a humanizing process for students in the dehumanizing, competitive process of medical school admissions.

Mindful Reading Beyond First-Year Writing
Ellen C. Carillo
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2026.22.3-4.04

This article reports on a longitudinal, cross-institutional study exploring the extent to which undergraduate students transfer reading practices they learned in their first-year writing courses to future courses and contexts. Although small in scale, this study is a step toward helping writing program administrators, WAC/WID directors, writing center directors, and those in similar roles better understand the kinds of reading practices students engage in across their courses, which is a means toward creating more relevant and comprehensive first-year and cross-campus writing programs, as well as stronger support services on campus.

Student Perceptions and Use of GenAI for Writing: “Great Tool” or “Pandora’s Box”?
Cheryl H. Duffy, Rose Helens-Hart, and Stephanie M. Weigel
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2026.22.3-4.05

WAC/WID programs are uniquely positioned to lead the response to generative AI (GenAI) in student writing—not by policing its use, but by guiding ethical, effective integration across and in the disciplines. This study shares findings from a spring 2024 survey of 226 students at a midwestern university, exploring how students use GenAI in their writing, what they perceive as its benefits and risks, and whether they’re receiving instruction on how to use it well. Students reported frequent use of GenAI for brainstorming and revising but noted limited faculty guidance. Many expressed nuanced views: they recognized GenAI’s potential to support learning but remain aware of its flaws—especially the risk of inaccuracy, plagiarism, and loss of voice. Use varied by college, with education and business students reporting the most classroom integration and future use. Despite the tool’s growing role in students’ writing practices, faculty across campus had largely not adapted their pedagogy or policies to meet this shift. Students, meanwhile, asked for clear, thoughtful instruction rather than blanket bans. These findings reveal a disconnect between students’ needs and faculty readiness, and they offer a timely call for WAC/WID programs to help bridge that gap. We recommend supporting faculty with discipline-specific resources, emphasizing writing as process, and centering critical thinking in classroom conversations about GenAI. We further recommend that WAC/WID programs collaborate across campus when providing AI-related faculty development, striving for the interconnectivity promoted in the Whole Systems Approach for sustainability.

AWAC Newsletter:

From the AWAC Chair: Stewardship, Visibility, and Writing Across the Curriculum
Crystal N. Fodrey
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2026.22.3-4.06

This column inaugurates an ongoing space in Across the Disciplines for communication from the Association for Writing Across the Curriculum (AWAC). Each iteration will share key organizational developments, highlight AWAC-sponsored work, and invite readers into initiatives shaping writing across the curriculum.

Volume 22, Issue 1/2

Published July 25, 2025

I am pleased to announce that we have finalized important changes to our journal’s editorial practices, which you can now find on ATD’s Submissions page at /atd/submissions/. Over the last 18 months or so, we have been working to update our practices by taking as a starting point the 2021 “Anti-racist scholarly reviewing practices: A heuristic for editors, reviewers, and authors.” Our intention is to improve the journal’s practices and strengthen its commitment to equity, inclusion, linguistic justice, and multilingualism.

This issue includes four articles and two book reviews. The first two articles are quite different in many respects—one focuses on kinesiology students and peer review, and the other focuses on writing in calculus. Interestingly, they share a partial emphasis on learners’ perceptions regarding their learning through writing. The third article, a case study, underscores the importance of attending to a writing program’s web-based materials to ensure that stakeholders can engage meaningfully with the program and its resources. And the fourth article explores the integration of counterargument in writing intensive courses across a range of disciplines.

Introduction to Volume 22, Issue 1/2
Michael J. Cripps
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2025.22.1-2.01

Featured Articles:

Writing Circles in STEM: Why Structured Peer Review Engages Students as Writers, Thinkers, and Collaborators in Their Discipline
Tereza Joy Kramer, Claire Williams, Joe Zeccardi, and Joshua Rose
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2025.22.1-2.02

This study explores how students’ perceptions of themselves as thinkers and communicators within a STEM discipline are impacted by structured peer review. Quantitative and qualitative coding led to thematic analysis of students’ reflective writing papers produced during partial-credit companion courses called writing circles, which are weekly peer review groups facilitated by an instructor who is not the students’ disciplinary instructor. Study participants, during their circles, reviewed peers’ research proposals or lab reports for kinesiology courses, lower-division and upper-division. Analysis reveals that circles result in American STEM undergraduates increasing a) facility and appreciation for collaborative dialogue; b) ability to transfer communication and revision strategies; and c) confidence in their abilities as communicators, reviewers, and critical thinkers. These findings are relevant for educators searching for methods to support the learning of writing, critical thinking, and collaborating in STEM courses.

Writing to Engage in Multivariate Calculus: Students’ Perceptions of Math, Writing, and the Curriculum
Tyler Skorczewski and Justin Nicholes
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2025.22.1-2.03

Writing-related activities have long been identified as supporting students’ mathematics mastery and overall math success (Bahls, 2012). To further understand student experiences using writing in college math coursework, the present mixed-methods study explored the perceptions of a group of students (N = 55) in Multivariate Calculus who encountered writing-to-engage (WTE) assignments (Palmquist, 2020) at a four-year university in the midwestern USA. Pre- and post-course survey results suggest student preferences for technical and transactional writing over other forms, statistically significant positive movement away from skeptical thinking about math and math instruction, and enhanced perceptions of students’ writerly selves and student perceptions that the course was relevant for future careers.

Sustaining User Engagement: Programmatic Visibility and Website Usability for Cross-Curricular Literacy Programs
Christopher Basgier, Derek Ross, Norman E. Youngblood, and Hannah Smith
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2025.22.1-2.04

Sustainable visibility remains a challenge for cross-curricular literacy (CCL) initiatives such as writing across the curriculum (WAC) programs. The university community must be able to access relevant information, and they need to know how to participate. CCL program websites are a commonplace way to meet these needs, but research on CCL website design is scant. Without a scholarly base, CCL professionals may be left relying on intuition in website design, or else replicating other programs’ designs. In the process, they risk creating hard-to-use websites by mimicking ones designed for other programs, audiences, and contexts. Such acontextual site designs might jeopardize program visibility and sustainability. Therefore, in this article, we offer an IRB-approved user experience study of one CCL program. Via our analysis, we offer implications for CCL professionals and programs who are engaged in the process of (re)designing a website, with particular emphasis on implications for program visibility and sustainability.

Embracing Complexity: Contradictions Between Perception and Application of Counterargument in Writing Intensive Assignments
Christy Goldsmith and Julie Birt
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2025.22.1-2.05

Writing intensive (WI) courses are well-situated to support students’ counterargument skill development, a key element for both academic and civic discourse in today’s socio-political environment. However, while many researchers celebrate multi-faceted argumentation, few studies look beyond a dichotomous or “two-sided” approach in post-secondary writing instruction. In this qualitative study, we drew on our established WAC program’s extensive WI course proposal system to ask: How do WI instructors describe counterargumentation, both broadly and in relation to their writing assignments? Through grounded theory data analyses, we categorized and qualified instructors’ descriptions of counterargumentation use within 350 WI courses and assignments. Although there was agreement on the importance of argumentation, our successive rounds of analysis revealed interesting contradictions in the ways WI instructors conceptualized disciplinary argumentation and how they apprenticed students into argumentative writing tasks. As we explored the tension between instructors’ characterization and practice of counterargument, we realized the need to design intentional professional development to help WI instructors teach students how to embrace subjectivity as they design, implement, and assess student writing activities.

Reviews:

Review of Pedagogical Perspectives on Cognition and Writing, edited by J. Michael Rifenburg, Patricia Portanova, and Duane Roen. (2021). Parlor Press. 361 pages. [ISBN 978-1-64317-246-0 (paperback); 978-1-64317-247-7 (hardcover); 978-1-64317-248-4 (PDF); 978-1-64317-249-1 (EPUB)]
Reviewed by S. Fain Riopelle
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2025.22.1-2.06

Review of Essentials of Autoethnography, by Christopher N. Poulos. (2021). American Psychological Association. 100 pages. [ISBN 978-1-4338-3454-7]
Reviewed by Shana Scudder
DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2025.22.1-2.07

The mission of Across the Disciplines is to provide information for— and an opportunity for interaction among—scholars interested in writing, speaking, reading, and communication across the curriculum (CAC). We welcome contributions of the following kinds:

• articles on CAC theory, practice, and research
• reviews of publications addressing CAC theory, practice, and research
• papers formerly presented at scholarly conferences but not published elsewhere

For more information about submitting to this journal, please see the Clearinghouse invitation to contribute scholarly work, its statement on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and its statement on publication ethics. Submissions and peer reviews should be informed by these statements. Our peer review process is also guided by the practices outlined in "Anti-racist scholarly reviewing practices: A heuristic for editors, reviewers, and authors" (2021).

For queries or questions about submissions to ATD, please contact Michael J. Cripps, Editor, at mcripps@une.edu or 207-602-2908.