In the autumn of 2023, I observed a peculiar trend in my students’ essays, which seemed to split into two categories. Some papers were exceptionally well-polished, especially in grammar, with students admitting during conferences that they extensively used AI tools to draft their work. Surprisingly, many of these students did not feel they were doing anything unethical. The other essays, however, were rough and underdeveloped, suggesting that those students might have benefited from AI assistance before our meetings. This disparity led me to ponder whether teaching students to use AI thoughtfully could enhance their writing instead of replacing it. Rather than banning or ignoring AI, I opted to teach students to use it as an assistant during the revision process.
Duri Long and Brian Magerko (2020) define AI literacy as the ability to critically evaluate AI technologies, communicate and collaborate with them, and use AI as a tool in various settings. In my classroom, this definition shed light on how students frequently used AI, though not always thoughtfully. Over time, I realized the issue wasn’t access to AI but how to use it intentionally. While most students used AI tools, their confidence in effective use was lower, indicating that familiarity didn’t equate to critical or ethical use. This realization showed me that students needed guided practice, not just rules, prompting me to create a revision project framing AI as an assistant.
To tackle these issues, I developed an assignment framing AI as a revision assistant. Students revisited a Character Analysis Research Paper and used the Hemingway Editor, an AI tool focusing on sentence clarity, structure, grammar, and readability. They reviewed suggested changes, choosing to accept, revise, or reject them, and the tool allowed them to adjust their draft’s reading level. After revising, students compared drafts and reflected on how AI influenced their writing process. Unlike generative tools, Hemingway presents options rather than content.
Before starting the assignment, students showed varied preparation with AI. Some understood the difference between generative content tools and assistive revision tools, while others lacked familiarity. Those with experience mentioned tools like Grammarly or ChatGPT, indicating AI wasn’t new, but effective usage was inconsistent. Students had concerns about AI generating incorrect information, reducing their voice, or crossing ethical lines akin to cheating. The assignment gave them space to confront these worries directly. Despite concerns, many found assistive tools helpful during revision, improving grammar, clarity, and sentence length. Some resisted, calling suggestions simplistic, yet still made meaningful revisions, showing critical judgment. This raised questions about how AI introduction timing affects outcomes.
After the first semester, I revised the assignment for Spring 2025. Although helpful, students felt overwhelmed by feedback volume, so I continued using Hemingway Editor, which required evaluating suggestions. Structural changes included giving students in-class time for the tool, starting with a demonstration and independent practice. The assignment timing shifted to use AI before final drafts, integrating it into the drafting process. A new survey question asked if students’ concerns about AI use had changed.
Comparing the two project versions highlighted instructional framing’s impact on student behavior. When AI use was optional and ungraded, students experimented more freely but casually. Making the AI assistant part of graded work made students more selective, treating it as something to consult and question rather than follow blindly. This shift underscored AI’s classroom positioning importance. Introducing the assistant earlier and making its use consequential encouraged deliberate engagement with revision choices. Modeling also mattered; when I demonstrated using the tool transparently, students gained confidence in decision-making. In future assignments, I plan to have students experiment with multiple AI tools or use different ones at various writing stages.
Original Source: facultyfocus.com
