CFP: Responding to Multilingual Writers and Writing in the Age of AI

Posted on by

Dear Colleagues,

This is a reminder to consider submitting a proposal to this edited volume by August 1st!

Dr. Svetlana Koltovskaia (Northeastern State University) and I encourage you to submit a chapter proposal by August 1st for our edited collection tentatively titled Responding to Multilingual Writers and Writing in the Age of AI: Opportunities, Challenges, and Paths Forward. Please consult our CFP and proposal submission form for more information, and don’t hesitate to email us with questions or ideas you’d like to discuss.

Call for Book Chapter Proposals

Responding to Multilingual Writers and Writing in the Age of AI: Opportunities, Challenges, and Paths Forward

Editors:

minnilsm)

koltovsk)

Goals and Vision

This edited volume will showcase cutting-edge research and theorization about response to multilingual writers and their writing that considers the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on writing, language, and response practices. Multilingual Matters has asked to see a proposal of the volume, and Routledge has shown interest in the volume.

Responding to writing–which includes providing feedback, engaging in peer review, participating in writing conferences, and conducting writing consultations–can have a significant impact on the author, their writing, and even on the responder (Ferris, 2003; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). We understand the term “multilingual writer” as encompassing those who write in multiple languages, those who write in a second or additional language, international students, migrants, refugees, Indigenous writers, and transnational writers, as well as writers who embrace varied linguistic and cultural practices in academic, professional, and civic contexts. Multilingual writers bring diverse linguistic, rhetorical, cultural, and semiotic repertoires to the act of writing and to conversations about writing. In order to support the development of multilingual writers, responders do well to consider these writers’ backgrounds and the assets that they contribute to writing situations. A considerable body of scholarship has established best practices for responding to multilingual writers (Andrade & Evans, 2012; Hyland & Hyland, 2019; Rafoth, 2015), particularly in academic settings, while less is known about response to multilingual writing in professional and civic contexts.

The recent proliferation of AI technologies has contributed to changes in many multilingual writers’ composing, communication, reading, and learning practices (Hwang et al., 2025). Furthermore, many teachers, writing center consultants, and professionals have integrated GenAI into their feedback processes and/or scaffolded engagement with GenAI response as part of their teaching or professional practices (Crull & Stillman, 2026; Koltovskaia et al., 2024; Lindberg, 2025; Speber et al., 2026; Tzirides et al. 2024). While incorporating GenAI into multilingual writers’ response ecologies may offer additional support and perspectives on their writing, this move may bring challenges including but not limited to inaccurate or non-constructive feedback, limited human-to-human relationship-building, and feedback that prioritizes hegemonic linguistic and cultural norms (McKinley & Rose, 2026). As we continue to grapple with these questions, we invite researchers to share their insights with the scholarly community through this volume.

Suggested Themes

This volume invites chapter proposals that feature research and theorization about the following topics:

  • Response practices that incorporate AI

    • Integrating AI into response practices and impacts on multilingual writers

    • Combining AI response with other forms of response (e.g., peer review, writing consultations, conferencing)

    • AI-supported response practices in professional settings, in civic contexts, and in the disciplines

  • Responding to multilingual writers who use AI in their writing process

    • Developments to response strategies and rubrics/evaluation criteria

    • (Co-)creating and discussing policies or ethics statements about AI, writing, and response with multilingual writers

    • Fostering critical AI literacy development through response

  • Evaluations and impacts of AI feedback

    • Reliability, validity, fairness of AI feedback

    • Impacts of engaging with AI feedback on learning, language and writing practices, feedback literacy

    • Impacts of engaging with AI feedback on relationship-building, social-emotional well-being, human-to-human and computer-human interaction

  • Multilingual writers’ perspectives and strategies

    • Multilingual writers’ practices, views, and learning strategies related to AI response

    • Multilingual writers’ practices, views, and learning strategies related to teacher, peer, supervisor, colleague, reviewer, and/or gatekeeper response in the current moment, including ways of using AI to interpret or critique these comments and formulate next steps for writing

We welcome empirical, theoretical, conceptual, and data-driven practice-oriented chapters. We encourage submissions to consider response and multilingual writing in a range of languages and language varieties, geographic settings, and contexts (e.g., professional, civic). Chapters must be original work and not under review elsewhere. We expect chapters to be around 6000-8000 words in length and to incorporate data-driven and/or theory-driven thematic structuring or IMRaD formatting.

Submission Guidelines

Please submit a proposal of 300-500 words by August 1, 2026. Proposals should be formatted in APA style and include the following:

  • Tentative chapter title

  • The authors’ names, titles, affiliations, and email addresses

  • Abstract

  • References (not included in word count)

  • Approximately 50 word author biographies (not included in word count)

Please submit your proposal and relevant information in this Google Form for submissions (https://forms.gle/zGPt7q1kCLJp5dSj6).

Submissions will be reviewed for topical relevance, methodological appropriateness, novelty, and potential for contribution. Selected chapters will be notified via email by approximately August 15th, 2026.

Tentative Timeline

  • May 19, 2026: CFP released

  • August 1, 2026: proposals due

  • August 15, 2026: selected chapter proposal authors will be notified and invited to submit full chapters

  • February 5, 2027: chapter submission deadline

  • April 2, 2027: deadline for peer review of chapters (contributing authors are asked to peer review 1-2 other chapters)

  • July 9, 2027: deadline for first round of chapter revisions

  • August 13, 2027: editorial feedback deadline

  • November 12, 2027: deadline for second round of chapter revisions

  • December 1, 2027: deadline for submitting full volume to publisher

  • December 2028: estimated date of publication

References

Andrade, M. S., & Evans, N. W. (2012). Principles and practices for response in second language writing: Developing self-regulated learners. Routledge.

Crull, C., & Stillman, N. (2026). Embracing AI as a “Second Reader” in Writing Center Consultations: Exploring New Opportunities for Learning and Reflection. In E. H. Buck & J. Botvin (Eds.), Writing Centers and AI: Generating Early Conversations (pp. 237–249). https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2026.2791.2.19

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Routledge.

Hwang, H., Chang, X., & Sun, J. (2025). Generative AI is useful for second language writing, but when, why, and for how long do learners use it?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101230

Lindberg, N. (2025). We should promote GenAI writing tools for linguistic equity. The Writing Center Journal, 43(1), 159-166. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.2078

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.

Koltovskaia, S., Rahmati, P., & Saeli, H. (2024). Graduate students’ use of ChatGPT for academic text revision: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement. Journal of Second Language Writing, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101130

McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (2026). Towards Inclusive Feedback in Multilingual Writing: A Global Englishes Perspective. RELC Journal, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882261418341

Rafoth, B. (2014). Multilingual writers and writing centers. University Press of Colorado.

Sperber, L., MacArthur, M., Minnillo, S., Stillman, N., & Whithaus, C. (2025). Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment. Computers and Composition, 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921

Tzirides, A. O. O., Zapata, G., Kastania, N. P., Saini, A. K., Castro, V., Ismael, S. A., You, Y., dos Santos, T. A., Searsmith, D., & O’Brien, C. (2024). Combining human and artificial intelligence for enhanced AI literacy in higher education. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100184

Best,
Sophia
Sophia Minnillo, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Researcher | PAIRR ProjectUniversity Writing Program
University of California, Davis
Pronouns: she/her/hers | Website | Google Scholar