Computers and Composition最新文献

Investigating Method & Madness: The Composing Processes of 5th Grade Students 调查方法与疯狂：五年级学生的作曲过程

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-05-08 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102936

Brett Stamm

引用次数: 0

“Canon” and “fanon” in the danny phantom/detective comics (DC) comics crossover fandom: Expanding authorship and authority in transformative fan works 丹尼幻影/侦探漫画（DC）漫画跨界同人圈中的“佳能”和“法农”：在变革的同人作品中扩展作者和权威

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-05-07 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102937

Krista Grant

{"title":"“Canon” and “fanon” in the danny phantom/detective comics (DC) comics crossover fandom: Expanding authorship and authority in transformative fan works","authors":"Krista Grant","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102937","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102937","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In 2020, a new crossover fandom emerged, that of Danny Phantom x DC Comics (DPxDC), prompting thousands of fanfictions and participants. As neither media connected in their canons, how did this crossover fandom come to be? The content tags on these crossover fanfictions and on Tumblr posts collected Jan–April 2024 were collected and analyzed in a mixed-methods discourse analysis approach with inductive coding for key words “canon” and “fanon”. This research adds the consideration of a crossover fandom to the field of writing studies, and it is one of the first articles to explore fanfiction within writing studies, especially in a mixed methods study. Underpinning this research are grassroots activism, critical theory, and agential theories of resistance practices. I found that DPxDC fans consciously resist canon material and the canon author(s), enacting agency through distributed and communal writing practices and claiming a kind of personal and communal authorship and authority over works, offering a new way of understanding agency and distributed authorship in writing studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102937"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143916831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Leveraging ChatGPT for research writing: An exploration of ESL graduate students’ practices 利用ChatGPT进行研究写作：ESL研究生实践的探索

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-04-26 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102934

Dongmei Cheng , Mimi Li , Tony Lee

{"title":"Leveraging ChatGPT for research writing: An exploration of ESL graduate students’ practices","authors":"Dongmei Cheng , Mimi Li , Tony Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102934","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102934","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102934"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143876514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment 同伴和人工智能审查+反思（PAIRR）：以人为中心的形成性评估方法

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-04-23 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921

Lisa Sperber , Marit MacArthur , Sophia Minnillo , Nicholas Stillman , Carl Whithaus

{"title":"Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment","authors":"Lisa Sperber , Marit MacArthur , Sophia Minnillo , Nicholas Stillman , Carl Whithaus","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cycles of drafting and revising are crucial for student writers' growth, and formative assessment plays an important role. However, many teachers lack the time or resources to provide feedback on drafts. While research suggests that AI feedback is high enough quality to be used for draft feedback, especially when assignment-specific criteria are used (Steiss et al., 2024), it must be used in a human-centered process. AI has the potential to reduce educational equity gaps in writing support (Warschauer et al., 2023), but when narrowly implemented, technologies can deepen divides (Stornaiuolo, et al., 2023). Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) combines peer review best practices with AI review in an approach that emphasizes student agency and reflection. Using a mixed methods approach, this study examined student perceptions of AI utility in the context of peer review. Results indicate that AI tools offer useful feedback when combined with peer review. Students found the similarity between AI and peer feedback reassuring, while also valuing their complementary perspectives. Moreover, by evaluating AI outputs, students developed AI literacy, gaining familiarity with AI feedback's affordances and limitations while learning ethical ways to use AI in their writing processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102921"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143859253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Failing machines: Applied rhetorics for scalability, continuity, and sustainability of digital projects in the humanities 失败的机器：人文学科数字项目可扩展性、连续性和可持续性的应用修辞学

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-04-22 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102935

Eric J. York

引用次数: 0

A posthumanist approach to AI literacy 人工智能识字的后人文主义方法

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-04-09 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102933

Zhaozhe Wang , Chaoran Wang

引用次数: 0

Rhetoric in action: A multimodal and rhetorical analysis of PETA and animal justice online advocacy 行动中的修辞：PETA和动物正义在线倡导的多模态和修辞分析

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102924

Shyam Pandey

{"title":"Rhetoric in action: A multimodal and rhetorical analysis of PETA and animal justice online advocacy","authors":"Shyam Pandey","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102924","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102924","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Activist groups, particularly PETA and Animal Justice, leverage multimodality in online advocacy to effectively communicate their organizational missions and updates across diverse communication platforms. This study uses a content analysis approach to examine the official websites of two prominent international animal rights organizations, PETA and Animal Justice, with the aim of understanding how they utilize multimodality to emotionally engage their audiences. The analysis of sample news reports, featured stories, photographs, and video materials collected from 50 web pages of these organizations’ official sites reveals three key findings: the use of multimodal combinations and synergetic blending, the application of rhetorical appeals, and an emphasis on a call to action. The subsequent discussion and conclusion highlight the significance of adopting a multimodal approach in the current technological landscape, illustrating how PETA and Animal Justice, as non-profit and non-academic entities, effectively convey their messages persuasively through online advocacy and multimodality. This study contributes to multimodal theory by demonstrating how the combination of visual, textual, and auditory elements enhances emotional engagement in digital advocacy—a domain that has received limited scholarly attention.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102924"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143680938","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Coexisting with ChatGPT: Evaluating a tool for AI-based paper revision 与ChatGPT共存：评估基于人工智能的论文修改工具

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102923

Matt Manierre, Lisa Propst, Alex Cohen, JoAnn Rogers

{"title":"Coexisting with ChatGPT: Evaluating a tool for AI-based paper revision","authors":"Matt Manierre, Lisa Propst, Alex Cohen, JoAnn Rogers","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102923","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102923","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>AI based tools such as ChatGPT have presented many challenges to educators since they entered the scene in 2022. We present our effort to coexist with ChatGPT in the classroom, developing an exercise for first year writing students to use ChatGPT while revising papers. The effectiveness of this activity was determined using pretest/posttest surveys (<em>n</em> = 64 and 53) and one- page reflective essays. Survey results indicated that students had largely positive appraisals of the different elements of the exercise, describing them as useful without reducing their appreciation of writing as an essential skill for the future. Yet, student writing self-efficacy also did not improve after working with ChatGPT. Qualitative responses were often positive but students frequently reported frustrations with ChatGPT rewriting work when told not to and providing only generic feedback. We offer our exercise as a means to engage students in critical thought about ChatGPT's uses, limitations, and implications for academic integrity. We suggest ways to iterate on this tool and to incorporate it in future work but emphasize that students must be taught to use AI tools with considerable skepticism.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102923"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143593427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Objectivity bias in first-year research writing: The impact of perceived neutrality in an age of mistrust 第一年研究写作中的客观性偏见：在不信任时代感知中立的影响

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-03-08 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102925

Elise Silva

引用次数: 0

Drafting defensively, documenting authorship: An analysis of Draftback and Grammarly Authorship 防御性起草，记录作者身份：草稿和语法作者身份分析

Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2025-03-07 DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102926

Maggie Fernandes, Megan McIntyre

{"title":"Drafting defensively, documenting authorship: An analysis of Draftback and Grammarly Authorship","authors":"Maggie Fernandes, Megan McIntyre","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102926","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102926","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this piece, we offer critical interface analyses of two process surveillance interfaces, a term we use to describe personal writing tools that track students’ writing process via edits, revisions, and inserted text. Specifically, we examine: Draftback, a Google extension that predates ChatGPT-3, and Grammarly Authorship, a new beta feature for Grammarly users. Situated in scholarly conversations in digital cultural rhetorics, writing studies, surveillance studies, and user experience design, we analyze how these process surveillance interfaces reinscribe normative values for writing as product (rather than process) and facilitate feelings of suspicion, anxiety, and defensiveness for users. This analysis has implications both for instructors seeking to teach with tools like Draftback and Authorship to verify “responsible” GenAI use <em>and</em> instructors seeking to implement punitive anti-AI policies. Though Draftback and Grammarly Authorship are different kinds of process surveillance interfaces, they pose similar threats to writing process instruction when used for academic integrity purposes by either students or instructors. Namely, we find three issues associated with three process surveillance interfaces; namely, these tools promote 1) product over process; 2) normative constructions of embodiment and time; and 3) adversarial student-instructor dynamics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102926"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143570575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0