柴田 直哉

This document-based historical analysis explores how writing instruction and activities have been articulated in Japan’s national curriculum guidelines for English education, and reconsiders the writing abilities required in the age of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Presenters highlight the importance of a process-genre approach to writing instruction that incorporates GenAI technology.

This presentation explores the relationship between teachers’ 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.

Abstract Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have profoundly reshaped the environments in which second language (L2) writing is taught and learned. AI-mediated tools are now routinely involved in writing processes, feedback practices, assessment, and instructional design, creating new possibilities as well as new tensions for writing teachers. Much of the emerging discussion has focused on how AI can support writing instruction or enhance efficiency. Far less attention, however, has been paid to what these changes mean for writing teachers’ professional expertise as a human, relational, and situated practice. This invited colloquium addresses this gap by foregrounding the humanity of writing teachers as it is lived, strained, and negotiated in everyday teaching under AI-shaped conditions. Rather than treating expertise as a stable set of skills or technical knowledge that teachers either possess or lack, the colloquium conceptualizes expertise as a fundamentally human responsibility as well as a resource—one enacted through judgment, care, ethical accountability, and continual negotiation within institutional and pedagogical constraints. From this perspective, AI does not simply add new tools to teachers’ repertoire; it reshapes the moral and professional terrain of writing instruction by intensifying existing asymmetries, exposing structural limitations, and altering the conditions under which teachers are expected to exercise judgment, sustain relationships with learners, and take responsibility for decisions they do not always control. Across higher education contexts—illustrated in this colloquium through the case of Japanese universities—writing teacher expertise emerges at the intersection of uneven student preparation, institutional designs that marginalize writing expertise, disciplinary differences in beliefs about writing, and employment structures that unevenly distribute authority and responsibility. In such environments, the presence of AI does not resolve long-standing tensions in writing instruction. Instead, it renders visible forms of expertise that are often taken for granted, undervalued, or structurally constrained, while simultaneously increasing expectations placed on teachers. The five presentations in this colloquium examine how writing teacher expertise is reconfigured at multiple, interconnected levels: theoretical, pedagogical, institutional, organizational, and personal. Together, they foreground the humanity of writing teachers by attending to the interpretive, ethical, and affective dimensions of their work—dimensions that cannot be reduced to technological function, instructional efficiency, or tool mastery. By situating AI as a condition rather than a solution, this colloquium addresses pressing questions about how L2 writing can remain a meaningful human practice, and how writing teachers can remain professionally and ethically human, in increasingly AI-shaped educational environments. Presentation 1: Reconsidering Writing Teacher Expertise in the Age of AI: A Conceptual Perspective Mayumi Fujioka, Osaka Metropolitan University, Japan This presentation provides a conceptual foundation for the colloquium by revisiting how writing teacher expertise has been theorized in L2 writing research and examining how these discussions need to be reconsidered in the age of AI. Prior scholarship has emphasized notions such as adaptive expertise, professional judgment, and teacher learning, often framing expertise as the capacity to respond flexibly to pedagogical complexity. However, these discussions have rarely addressed how technological conditions reshape the very contexts in which such expertise is enacted. Drawing on key theoretical debates on L2 writing teacher expertise (e.g., Lee, 2025; Seloni, 2022), this presentation argues that writing teacher expertise should not be understood primarily as technical competence or tool-related knowledge, but as a form of human judgment exercised under conditions of uncertainty, responsibility, and ethical tension. By situating AI within these conceptual discussions, the presentation reframes expertise as a relational and moral practice rather than a purely instrumental one. This perspective establishes a conceptual anchor for the colloquium, clarifying what is at stake when the humanity of writing teachers is foregrounded in AI-influenced writing environments. Presentation 2: Teaching Remedial Writers with AI: Expertise as Care, Judgment, and Pedagogical Relationship Chiaki Baba, Teikyo University of Science, Japan Focusing on remedial writing contexts, this presentation examines how writing teacher expertise is enacted when students lack basic understandings of what writing is and how it works. In such contexts, the introduction of AI poses particular challenges: students may delegate writing entirely to AI systems, disengaging from learning processes, authorial responsibility, and reader awareness. Writing teachers are thus required to make complex pedagogical and ethical judgments that extend beyond instructional technique. Drawing on experiences teaching remedial university students, this presentation conceptualizes expertise as a form of care-oriented practice. It highlights how teachers build rapport, foster a sense of audience, and sustain learner engagement under conditions of profound asymmetry in knowledge and confidence. Rather than framing AI use as a problem of regulation or control, the presentation argues that writing teacher expertise in remedial contexts lies in sustaining pedagogical relationships that make meaningful writing possible in the first place. In doing so, it foregrounds the emotional and relational labor that underpins humanity in writing instruction. Presentation 3: Institutional Constraints on Writing Teacher Expertise in Japanese Higher Education Ryuichi Sato, Kyoto University, Japan This presentation shifts the focus from individual classrooms to institutional structures that shape writing instruction. Drawing on a large-scale analysis of over 1,400 university syllabi, it demonstrates that EFL writing instruction in Japanese higher education remains predominantly product-oriented, textbook-driven, and minimally genre-based. These patterns reflect institutional design rather than individual teacher beliefs, systematically marginalizing writing expertise while simultaneously expanding expectations placed on instructors. The presentation argues that efforts to integrate AI into writing instruction cannot be understood apart from these structural constraints. Even when teachers recognize the pedagogical potential of AI, institutional frameworks often limit how professional judgment can be exercised in practice. By foregrounding the institutional conditions under which writing is taught, this presentation reframes writing teacher expertise as something that is not merely enacted—or not enacted—by individuals but enabled or constrained by educational systems. AI, in this sense, functions as a lens that makes these constraints newly visible. Presentation 4: Managing Disciplinary Difference: Writing Expertise, AI, and Organizational Mediation Madoka Kawano, Meiji University, Japan This presentation examines writing teacher expertise from the perspective of organizational and disciplinary mediation. Drawing on experiences coordinating EAP/ESP courses within a science faculty, it explores how AI has intensified existing differences in beliefs about writing among instructors from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. Conflicting assumptions about the purposes of writing, appropriate instructional approaches, and the role of AI often generate tension and uncertainty at the program level. Through concrete cases of syllabus coordination and policy development, the presentation conceptualizes expertise as a form of mediating and managerial practice. Writing teacher expertise, from this perspective, involves aligning divergent beliefs, translating across disciplinary cultures, and sustaining instructional coherence among stakeholders. By highlighting these often-invisible forms of labor, the presentation expands conventional understandings of writing expertise beyond classroom teaching to include professional judgement and organizational responsibility. Presentation 5: Writing Teacher Expertise from the Margins: An Autoethnographic Perspective Naoya Shibata, Osaka Kyoiku University, Japan The final presentation foregrounds writing teacher expertise as it is lived under conditions of limited authority and structural precarity. Drawing on autoethnographic reflection as an instructor, it examines how writing teachers enact professional judgment, ethical responsibility, and care while operating within institutional systems that restrict control over course design, assessment policy, and AI-related decision-making. By narrating moments of pedagogical decision-making, emotional labor, and ethical tension, this presentation highlights the uneven distribution of authority and responsibility in writing instruction. It argues that understanding the humanity of writing teachers in the age of AI requires attending not only to pedagogy and policy, but also to the labor conditions under which expertise is recognized, constrained, or rendered invisible. This perspective brings the colloquium full circle by grounding conceptual and institutional discussions in lived professional experience.

本分科会では、大学と附属学校の連携・共同に基づく中学校英語ライティングカリキュラムデザインのためのアクション・リサーチについて、初年度の中間報告を行う。まず、小・中・高の接続を視野に入れ、附属小・中・高の英語教員を対象としたCEFR-J準拠アンケートに基づき、各学校段階の卒業時に求められるライティング力を整理し、中学校段階の到達目標を設定し、英語授業の観察を通して環境分析とニーズ分析を行った。次に、中学2年生を対象としたテーマ型内容中心教授法、プロセスライティング、ジャンル準拠指導を統合した教材開発と実践を進めた。実践期間中は、月例オンラインミーティングと授業観察を行い、生徒のライティング成果物とアンケート回答を収集した。本発表では、開発・実践過程を示すとともに、授業観察記録、成果物、アンケート回答の分析に基づき、当該カリキュラムの成果と課題を研究者・指導助言者・実践者の視点から検討する。

Theme-based instruction (TBI), as a language-driven model of content-based instruction that uses themes relevant to students’ interest and academic majors to develop language abilities, is conducted in many tertiary educational settings (Brinton & Snow, 2017), including Japanese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) contexts. Although some positive effects of TBI on language production have been reported, its limited effects on accuracy development have also been identified (Lightbown & Spada, 2021). Because of this, the integration of TBI and explicit grammar teaching approaches is recommended (Lyster, 2007). A meaning-order approach to pedagogical grammar (MAP Grammar), defined as a systematic grammar teaching and learning approach to help learners raise awareness of the meaning-order of the target language (Tajino, 2019), may address its drawback. However, few studies on the integration of TBI and MAP Grammar have been conducted. Thus, this research aims to examine the effects of the integration of these two approaches on timed writing abilities in a Japanese EFL tertiary context. Seventy-six students were divided into two groups: a TBI group and a TBI+MAP Grammar group. Data were collected from pre- and post-tests of timed writing, a 6-point Likert scale questionnaire with open-ended questions, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Qualitative data were thematically coded and categorised into groups. After that, data integration was conducted to raise reliability and validity. Findings indicated that the TBI+MAP Grammar group produced fewer word tokens and fewer global and local grammatical mistakes than the TBI group. Furthermore, the TBI+MAP Grammar group gained more confidence in their timed writing abilities than the TBI group. Accordingly, TBI and MAP Grammar can be integrated to facilitate effective language learning.