Computers and Composition

23 articles
Year – Topic Clear
Export Subscribe (Atom)
discourse analysis×

June 2026

  1. Crafting and designing AI-simulated audiences in the writing classroom ↗
    Abstract

    Despite audience awareness being fundamental to writing pedagogy, student writers often struggle to move beyond considering their instructor as the primary reader, making connections between audience analysis and actual writing practice difficult. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) when viewed as models of culture that can be prompted to adopt various audience personas, may enable writers to interact with simulated audiences across multiple theories of audience consideration. We thus critically review a taxonomy of five audience theories: (1) writing without audiences, (2) specific people as audiences, (3) discourse communities, (4) publics, and (5) networks/algorithms. Rather than using GenAI as a text production tool, we argue for using these technologies as objects of critical inquiry that allow students to “craft and design” audiences through iterative interaction. This approach encourages writers to critique the biased design of the technology itself as well as their own biases embedded in audience descriptions.

    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2026.103007
  2. Historicizing critical discourse about emergent tools and technologies across 40 years of Computers and Composition ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2026.102997

June 2025

  1. Leveraging ChatGPT for research writing: An exploration of ESL graduate students’ practices ↗
    Abstract

    This case study investigates how two ESL graduate students, Ian and Sam, use ChatGPT in their research writing after receiving a comprehensive tutorial based on Warschauer et al.’s (2023) AI literacy framework. We analyzed their engagement with ChatGPT across prompt categories including genre, content, language use, documentation, coherence, and clarity. Data were collected from research paper drafts, ChatGPT chat histories, and interviews. Data analyses included coding ChatGPT prompts, textual analysis of drafts, and thematic analysis of interview transcripts . Results show that while both participants utilized ChatGPT for understanding genre conventions and content development, they developed distinct approaches reflecting their individual backgrounds. Ian selectively used ChatGPT for specific assistance needs, while Sam engaged more systematically, particularly for APA style and coherence checks. Both approaches maintained academic integrity and scholarly voice, demonstrating that Generative AI tools can be effectively tailored to individual needs without compromising ethical standards. This study highlights how advanced ESL writers can adapt GenAI tools to their unique writing processes, offering insights into the diverse ways AI can enhance academic writing while preserving individual agency. The findings suggest that AI integration in academic writing can be customized to support diverse writing goals and backgrounds.

    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102934

June 2024

  1. Creating opportunities and spaces for social interactions in online contexts: Academic discourse socialization of L2 international graduate students ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102849

March 2023

  1. #anxiety: A multimodal discourse analysis of narrations of anxiety on TikTok ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102763
  2. Facilitating student discourse: Online and hybrid writing students’ perceptions of teaching presence ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102761

September 2019

  1. Shoaling Rhizomes: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Social Media’s Role in Discourse and Composition Education ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2019.05.005

June 2017

  1. Rhetorical Choices in Facebook Discourse: Constructing Voice and Persona ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2017.03.006

September 2013

  1. Rethinking Authenticity: Voice and Feedback in Media Discourse ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2013.06.002

June 2011

  1. Conventional Faces: Emoticons in Instant Messaging Discourse ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2011.04.001

September 2010

  1. From Incentive to Stewardship: The Shifting Discourse of Academic Publishing ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2010.06.010

June 2009

  1. Usability Research in the Writing Lab: Sustaining Discourse and Pedagogy ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.10.001

January 2007

  1. Written arguments and collaborative speech acts in practising the argumentative power of language through chat debates ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.05.002

June 2004

  1. Technological dramas: A meta-discourse heuristic for critical literacy ↗
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.04.001
  2. Technological dramas: A meta-discourse heuristic for critical literacy*1 ↗
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(04)00004-0

April 2002

  1. Negotiation of identity and power in a Japanese online discourse community ↗
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(02)00079-8

July 2001

  1. Re-in/citing linguistic injuries: speech acts, cyberhate, and the spatial and temporal character of networked environments ↗
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(01)00057-3

January 2000

  1. Technology and tenure: creating oppositional discourse in an offline and online world ↗
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(99)00029-8

January 1999

  1. Configuring Listserv, configuring discourse ↗
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(99)00017-1

January 1998

  1. Computer-mediated communication in the undergraduate writing classroom: A study of the relationship of online discourse and classroom discourse in two writing classes ↗
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(98)90023-8

January 1996

  1. Microethnographies of electronic discourse communities: Establishing exigency for e-mail in the professional writing classroom ↗
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(96)90037-7

January 1994

  1. The medium facilitates the messages: Electronic discourse and literature class dynamics ↗
    doi:10.1016/8755-4615(94)90009-4

April 1987

  1. The computer as audience: Using Homer, a text analysis program ↗
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(87)80006-3