Computers and Composition

24 articles
Year: Topic: Clear
Export:
revision ×

June 2025

  1. Coexisting with ChatGPT: Evaluating a tool for AI-based paper revision
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102923

June 2024

  1. Does the peer review mode make a difference? An exploratory look at undergraduates' performances and preferences in a writing course
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102854

December 2021

  1. Google Docs or Microsoft Word? Master's students' engagement with instructor written feedback on academic writing in a cross-cultural setting
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102672
  2. A web-based feedback platform for peer and teacher feedback on writing: An Activity Theory perspective
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102666

December 2019

  1. Online Metaphorical Feedback and Students’ Textual Revisions: An Embodied Cognitive Experience
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102512

June 2019

  1. Teachers as co-authors of student writing: How teachers’ initiating texts influence response and revision in an online space
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2019.01.005

June 2018

  1. First-Year Composition as “Big Data”: Towards Examining Student Revisions at Scale
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2018.03.003

December 2017

  1. Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Peer Review of Writing
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.006
  2. Online Peer Review Using Turnitin in First-Year Writing Classes
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.001

March 2017

  1. A Novel Approach to Examine the Impact of Web-based Peer Review on the Revisions of L2 Writers
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2016.11.005

June 2016

  1. EFL Reviewers’ Emoticon Use in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Peer Response
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2016.03.008

December 2012

  1. Blog-Based Peer Reviewing in EFL Writing Classrooms for Chinese Speakers
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2012.09.004

March 2012

  1. Peer Review via Three Modes in an EFL Writing Course
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001
  2. Camtasia in the Classroom: Student Attitudes and Preferences for Video Commentary or Microsoft Word Comments During the Revision Process
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2011.12.001

December 2010

  1. Dynamic Motives in ESL Computer-Mediated Peer Response
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2010.09.001

January 2005

  1. Email small group peer review revisited
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2005.02.005

June 2004

  1. The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course
    doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003

December 2000

  1. Developing sound tutor training for online writing centers: creating productive peer reviewers
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(00)00034-7
  2. Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(00)00035-9

January 1996

  1. Promises, promises: Computer-assisted revision and basic writers
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(96)90020-1
  2. Facilitating college writers' revisions within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting framework
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(96)90038-9

January 1994

  1. Using the eyes of the PC to teach revision
    doi:10.1016/8755-4615(94)90008-6

November 1987

  1. Case studies of revision aided by keystroke recording and replaying software
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(87)80013-0

April 1987

  1. Computer exercises to encourage rethinking and revision
    doi:10.1016/s8755-4615(87)80005-1