Composing with AI

Comparison of TCOM 2010 and FYC Students: AI Usage and Perceptions

AI Usage in Writing

Figure 1. demonstrates three differences in student attitudes when comparing TCOM 2010 students and first-year composition students. For example, students were asked how often they use AI in different writing contexts. The trends show variability in AI usage for academic work, personal writing, and professional writing, with notable differences between the two groups:

• Academic Writing: Both groups use AI occasionally for schoolwork, but TCOM students do so at a slightly higher rate. Many use AI as a writing tutor or idea generator for essays and reports. For example, they might ask an AI to suggest how to organize a report or to rephrase a sentence. First-Year Writing students also experiment with AI for homework (like getting feedback on a draft or finding synonyms), but a larger portion of first-years say they “rarely or never” use AI for assignments compared to TCOM students. This indicates that while AI is present in academic work for both, Technical Communication majors have more fully embraced it as part of their writing process.
• Personal Writing: Usage of AI for personal tasks (such as journaling, social media posts, or creative writing for fun) is relatively low in both groups. Only a few students in each group report regularly using AI for personal writing. Those who do might use it for things like drafting emails, writing resumes, or casual creative brainstorming. Generally, TCOM students reported slightly more personal AI use – perhaps utilizing tools to polish personal projects or communications. First-year students seem to use AI personally mostly out of curiosity (for instance, asking ChatGPT fun questions or help with a personal statement) rather than as a routine practice.
• Professional Writing: Here we see one of the biggest differences. Technical Communication students are far more likely to use AI for professional or work-related writing. Many TCOM respondents have either internship experiences, part-time jobs, or class projects mimicking workplace writing (like proposals, technical manuals, or business emails). They reported using AI tools to generate outlines, edit professional documents, or simplify complex technical jargon. In contrast, First-Year Writing students rarely use AI in a professional context, largely because most are new college students without professional writing duties yet. Any mention of professional use by first-year students was minimal (for example, maybe using AI to help write a cover letter for a summer job). Essentially, AI as a writing assistant in the workplace is already being explored by TCOM students, while first-year students have little exposure to that context.
• Need for Clarity: Both groups expressed that they’d like clear guidelines from instructors or institutions about AI usage. The ambiguity about what counts as cheating leads to anxiety. For example, students want to know: Is using Grammarly or an AI tutor allowed on assignments? Should they cite AI if it gave them an idea? This shared concern highlights that while students are open to using AI, they are also keenly aware of integrity and want to avoid unintentional misconduct.

Comparative Qualitative Data from TCOM 2010 and FYC Students

TCOM students highlighted genAI as a useful editorial and brainstorming tool but noted risks of losing creativity. Similarly, FYC students appreciated AI for organizing ideas but criticized it for making writing robotic and less personal.

AI in Academic Writing

TCOM students viewed genAI as a double-edged sword: a tool for learning but also a risk to foundational skills in writing. FYC students echoed this sentiment, stressing the need for guided use to prevent dependency and ensure effective learning outcomes. Sample quotes that represent data trends include:

TCOM: 'AI enhances learning when used for concept understanding, much like a calculator helped with math.'

TCOM: 'Using ChatGPT can constitute cheating if it replaces drafting and skill-building, but not if used as a tool for learning.'

FYC: 'AI democratizes access to learning resources, but improper use risks dependency and undermines academic integrity.'

FYC: 'Teachers should guide AI usage to prevent misuse while helping students learn to use it as a resource.'

AI Usage in Professional Writing

Both groups valued genAI for improving professional communication. TCOM students noted its utility in resume building and formal email writing, while FYC students warned against over-reliance, emphasizing the need for human oversight to maintain professionalism. Sample quotes that represent data trends include:

TCOM: 'I use AI to draft professional emails and improve resumes, which makes writing faster and more effective.'

TCOM: 'AI lacks the nuance needed for critical tasks, but it’s helpful for formatting and grammar improvement.'

FYC: 'AI helps polish professional documents, but there’s a risk of over-reliance on its outputs.'

FYC: 'Using AI for workplace writing can save time, but human oversight is essential to maintain quality.'

Our initial comparison between TCOM 2010 and FYC students reveals nuanced perspectives on the use of genAI in academic and professional contexts. Both groups share a recognition of genAI's potential to enhance writing efficiency, assist in brainstorming, and serve as a resource for professional communication. However, they express consistent concerns about over-reliance on genAI, the erosion of originality, and ethical implications in higher education settings. TCOM students appear slightly more inclined to view genAI as a collaborative tool, emphasizing its role in enhancing existing work. In contrast, FYC students stress the importance of preserving originality and learning outcomes, often framing genAI as a double-edged sword that requires careful guidance. This analysis highlights the shared understanding of genAI's transformative potential while emphasizing the need for structured, ethical integration of these tools to balance innovation with skill-building and academic integrity.

This research represents only preliminary results; we plan further analysis of responses based on evolving sets of questions each academic year. We collected data each semester up to Fall 2024 and have collaborated with colleagues in our Colleges of Engineering and Business to survey their students as well. Further, Jeanne developed a prompting method based on student attitudes and articulated needs. For current publications on further data usage, readers may check the endnotes of this article. We conducted this research under Kennesaw State University's IRB#: FY23-559.