Rethinking AI in Writing Pedagogy: From Fluency to Rhetorical Competence

Ken Hyland

doi:10.2478/doc-2026-0007

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Rethinking AI in Writing Pedagogy: From Fluency to Rhetorical Competence

Discourses on Culture

Volume 25 (2026): Issue 1 (June 2026)

By: Ken Hyland

Open Access

|Jul 2026

Adeshola, I., & Adepoju, A. P. (2023). The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 32, 1—14. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2253858.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus -based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151—183.DOI: 10.1177/0741088314527055.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chegg (2025). Global Student Survey. Chegg, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.chegg.org/global-student-survey-2025. Accessed 12 May 2026.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Deep, P. D., & Chen, Y. (2025). The role of AI in academic writing: Impacts on writing skills, critical thinking, and integrity in higher education. Societies, 15(9), 247. DOI: 10.3390/soc15090247.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gabrielatos, C. (2018). Keyness: Appropriate metrics and practical issues. In: C. Taylor & A. Marchi (Eds). Corpus approaches to discourse: A critical review (pp. 225—258). Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granger, S. (2013). The Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). Louvain-la -Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gao, R., Yu, D., Gao, B., Hua, H., Hui, Z., Gao, J., & Yin, C. (2025). Legal regulation of AI -assisted academic writing: Challenges, frameworks, and pathways. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1546064. DOI: 10.3389/ frai.2025.1546064.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Herbold, S., Hautli‑Janisz, A., Heuer, U., Kikteva, Z., & Trautsch, A. (2023). A large -scale comparison of human -written versus ChatGPT -generated essays. Scientific Reports, 13, 18617. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-45644-9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53—68. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hyland, K. (2026). Teaching and researching writing (5th edition). Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251—274. DOI: 10.1177/0741088316650399.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). Academic lexical bundles: How are they changing? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(4), 383—407. DOI: 10.1075/ijcl.17080.hyl.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hyland, K., Jiang, K., Wang, W. (2022). Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, 265, 103205. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103205.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2023). Interaction in written texts: A bibliometric study of published research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 13(4), 903—924. DOI: 10.14746/ssllt.40220.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep464. DOI: 10.30935/cedtech/13605.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (2024). Does ChatGPT argue like students? Bundles in argumentative essays. Applied Linguistics, 20, 1—17.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (2025a). Rhetorical distinctions: Comparing metadiscourse in essays by ChatGPT and students. English for Specific Purposes, 79, 17—29. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2025.03.001.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (2025b). Does ChatGPT write like a student? Engagement markers in argumentative essays. Written Communication, 42(3), 463—492. DOI: 10.1177/07410883251328311.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (2026). Taking a stance: AI generated vs student written argumentative essays. Applied Linguistics Review. DOI: 10.1515/applirev--2025-0188.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (in press). AI, argumentation and assessment: An analysis of interactive metadiscourse in ChatGPT and student writing. Journal of Pragmatics.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jiang, F., & Ma, X. (2018). ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 1—15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kelly, R. (2024). Survey: 86% of Students Already Use AI in Their Studies. Campus Technology. Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2024/08/28/survey-86-of-students-already-use-ai-in-their-studies.aspx. Accessed 12 May 2026.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kim, J., Lee, S., Detrick, R., Wang, J., & Li, N. (2025). Students—Generative AI interaction patterns and their impact on academic writing. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 38, 504—525. DOI: 10.1007/s12528-025-09444-6.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Li, H., & Wu, X. (2025). The use of generative AI tools in academic writing: A systematic review of research trends and thematic insights. AI Ethics, 5, 5821—5840. DOI: 10.1007/s43681-025-00827-0.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Markey, B., Brown, D. W., Laudenbach, M., & Kohler, A. (2024). Dense and disconnected: Analyzing the sedimented style of ChatGPT--generated text at scale. Written Communication, 41(4), 571—600. DOI: 10.1177/07410883241263528.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pack, A., & Maloney, J. (2023). Using Generative Artificial Intelligence for Language Education Research: Insights from Using OpenAI’s ChatGPT. TESOL Quarterly, 57(4), 1571—1582. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.3253.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rayson, P. (2016). Log-likelihood and effect size calculator. Lancaster University. Retrieved from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/llwizard.html. Accessed 12 May 2026.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Siddiqui, M. N., Pea, R., & Subramonyam, H. (2025). AI in the Writing Process: How Purposeful AI Support Fosters Student Writing. arXiv:2506.20595. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20595.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Speri, A. (2026). I wish I could push ChatGPT off a cliff’: professors scramble to save critical thinking in an age of AI. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2026/mar/10/ai-impact--professors-students-learning. Accessed 12 May 2026.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vee, A., Laquintano, T., & Schnitzler, C. (Eds.) (2023). TextGenEd: Teaching with text generation technologies. The WAC Clearinghouse. DOI: 10.37514/TWR--J.2023.2982.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wolfram, S. (2023). What Is ChatGPT Doing … and Why Does It Work? Writings. Retrieved from https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is--chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/. Accessed 22 May 2026.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yang, S., Chen, S., Zhu, H., Lin, J., & Wang, X. (2024). A comparative study of thematic choices and thematic progression patterns in human -written and AI--generated texts. System, 126(9), 103494. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2024.103494.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zou, H. & Hyland, K. (2020). “Think about how fascinating this is”: Engagement in academic blogs across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 43, DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100809.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article