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.

This article examines how the Computers in Writing-Intensive Classrooms (CIWIC)/Digital Media and Composition (DMAC) Institute has realized founding director Cynthia L. Selfe's commitment to prioritizing people first, then teaching, then technology. I analyze how institute curricula introduce and model pedagogies for teaching digital composing, foster networking among participants, articulate a critical stance toward technology, and encourage newcomers to enter the field as administrators and scholars (as well as teachers). I also draw on participant documents (social media posts, publications, and CVs) to investigate the uptake of these ideas. Moving forward, I suggest that in light of the institute's growing emphasis on digital composing, 1) knowledge-making should be seen as the larger frame for CIWIC/DMAC work, and 2) research should be added to the institute's existing articulation of the field in terms of people→teaching→technology.