Saving Writing Classes from Extinction:

ChatGPT as Part of the Teaching Pedagogy

Alexandra Jeikner

Deree - The American College of Greece, 6 Gravias Street GR-153 42 Aghia Paraskevi, Athens, Greece

Keywords: AI-Based Writing Activities.

Abstract:

The advent of generative AI (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT in late 2022 shook the academic world to its

core. Educators feared that students would rely on such tools instead of engaging in critical thinking and that

objective assessment of writing and thinking skills would become impossible. Several educational institutions

passed strict academic policies that labelled the usage of such tools forms of plagiarism. However, an

increasing body of literature demonstrates that as long as specific parameters are considered, it is the

educators’ responsibility to include GenAI tools in the teaching process, using them to promote both critical

writing skills and AI-literacy skills. This manuscript presents activities that involve low to moderate ChatGPT-

use, where the students retain a leading role, and assessments rubrics that evaluate both critical writing and

engagement with AI. It is a position paper which bases its evidence on existing literature, not experimental

results, since the activities have not been yet tested owing to departmental restrictions regarding all use of

GenAI tools.

1 INTRODUCTION

When ChatGPT was launched in late 2022, the

academic world appeared irrevocably shaken,

undermined by this new technology. Many educators

expressed bewilderment and helplessness in response

to what appeared to be skillful and undetectable use

by students. Publications proliferated that condemned

generative AI (GenAI), such as ChatGPT, as lacking

educational value and numerous academic

institutions implemented strict policies that banned

all use. However, two years later, a significant body

of research indicates that GenAI tools should be used

within the academic environment to enhance

learning. Less than a year ago, in an article published

March 2024, Karataş et al. claimed that a review of

the existing literature demonstrates “a landscape of

cautious optimism tempered by skepticism” (p.

19344); it also indicates “the need for AI in

education” (p. 19344). Today, bewilderment remains

but is tempered with curiosity and even praise. Still,

while most educational institutions have accepted

authorized use, individual instructors and sometimes

whole departments continue to prohibit all use. The

main reasons, besides lack of familiarity, usually

involve concerns about plagiarism and security. A

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0741-4916

further reason, for instance in our Writing Program, is

based on the pedagogical assumption that students

must first develop their own writing skills, such as the

drafting of thesis statements or the structuring of

paragraphs, before they are asked to evaluate and use

GenAI output.

Based on our experience in the Writing Program

of a private undergraduate educational institution in

S. Europe, where the language of instruction is

English, we support that such attitudes toward GenAI

are unrealistic and irresponsible. Students often

struggle to draft well-organized texts in precise and

academically appropriate language. Students for

whom English is a foreign language (EFL-students)

may be even more challenged. When writing essays

in a second language (L2), they often have their first

language (L1) in mind which, combined with limited

language proficiency, can result in low linguistic

precision and wordy sentences that obscure meaning

(Chung & Ahn, 2021; Lee & Briggs, 2020; Kaur &

Newell, 2024). This in turn increases anxiety and

reduces self-confidence (Baek et al., 2024). In our

experience, although academic policy prohibits it,

students, and more so EFL-students, often turn to

GenAI tools. The literature confirms this is a global

phenomenon, since access-, time- and cost-efficiency

500

Jeikner, A.

Saving Writing Classes from Extinction: ChatGPT as Part of the Teaching Pedagogy.

DOI: 10.5220/0013351000003932

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2025) - Volume 1, pages 500-511

ISBN: 978-989-758-746-7; ISSN: 2184-5026

of GenAI tools outweigh concerns about output

quality or academic integrity.

We need to accept that since as educators it is our

responsibility to prepare students for their

professional life, it is also our responsibility to help

students use AI-tools. Just as once educational

institutions “helped students acquire basic

technological proficiency”, they now need to promote

“more advanced digital competence” (Kohnke et al.,

2023, p. 546). This involves teaching effective, safe

and ethical GenAI use.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GenAI Tools in University Writing

Classes for L1 and L2 Students

Recent reviews indicate that the use of AI-tools can

provide many benefits in the educational context. It is

true that the use of GenAI tools is not without

challenges, but as the discussion in the section below,

regarding best practices of integrating GenAI tools

into the classroom, should show, careful

consideration of these challenges can help turn the

latter into teaching opportunities.

Tools such as ChatGPT can be “used as a learning

and educational tool” where “students can ask

questions [...] to get explanations, guidance, or

reference materials” (Prananta et al., 2023, p. 1034).

In fact, ChatGPT is described as “promoting critical

thinking and problem-solving abilities” (Graefen &

Fazel, 2024, p. 51). Based on a review of studies,

Nloy et al. (2024) identify ChatGPT as the choice of

GenAI tools owing to its “high accessibility, being a

free tool” and “easily accessible globally” as well as

its user-friendly interface (p. 4). Access-disparity

concerns mostly students from the lowest income

group (Baek et. Al, 2024).

Several studies on the educational use of chatbots

have shown that the integration of GenAI into the

educational process can benefit educators and

students, in all classes. This can range from

“facilitating learning” and “creating rich learning

environments” to “providing suggestions for

improving teaching practices” and “instant feedback

for students” (for a review of the literature, see for

instance Kayalı et al., 2023, p.21 & p. 27). Chatbots

such as ChatGPT can be used in the classroom to

increase students’ efficiency in task-completion of the

writing and the research process, by helping improve

language and coherence, by providing textual and

subject explanations, as well as by creating outlines

and citations (Albadarin et al., 2023; Huang and Tan,

2023; Kohnke et al., 2023; You, 2024). Studies also

show that educators can employ GenAI tools to

engage students in reflective writing and encourage

critical thinking (Albadarin et al., 2023; Zhao et al.,

2023). For instance, students can “review the changes

made by ChatGPT and decide whether to accept or

reject them based on their own judgment” (Barrot,

2023, p. 4). Of interest for writing classes such as

ours, which are based on the flipped-classroom

method, are findings that ChatGPT can help students

improve student performance and attitudes toward

learning and self-confidence (Li, 2023). Such classes

promote critical engagement but also demand

significant time investment from educators to provide

“personalised learning guidance and instant feedback

[…] when a teacher needs to interact with students at

the same time” (Chang & Hwang, 2018, in Li, 2023,

p. 42).

For EFL students, GenAI tools can be of particular

assistance and should therefore become part of the

teaching process (for a systematic review of studies

on the use of ChatGPT for L2 learning, see Karataş et

al., 2024; Yang & Li, 2024). Even before the advent

of these tools, the use of technology in the classroom

was described as helping students (Song & Song,

2023). For instance, even simple online machine

translations (MT), such as Google Translate (GT),

can help improve linguistic accuracy and increase

student satisfaction within the higher education (HE)

environment (Chung & Ahn, 2021; Lee & Briggs,

2020). GenAI tools such as ChatGPT are said to

“revolutionize language pedagogy” through the

learner-centered nature (Karataş et al., 2024, p.

19355). They offer new and more effective ways to

“address the challenges associated with developing

writing proficiency through traditional training

methods” by assisting in the development and

internalization of academic writing skills (Song &

Song, 2023, p.2). For instance, chatbots such as

ChatGPT can be used to acquaint students with

differences between academic and casual writing

(Yan, 2023, in You, 2024), translate explanations into

the L1-language and create vocabulary notes

(Kohnke et al., 2023). Even prompt writing to be

given to ChatGPT can enhance “the ability to

effectively express ideas and communicate

intentions” (Michalon & Camacho-Zuñiga, 2023, in

You, 2024, p. 2).

Interestingly, ChatGPT instruction is claimed to

benefit EFL students more than traditional instruction

(Song & Song, 2023; Vera, 2023) and to be

considered by students as improving “motivation and

learning engagement” (Karataş et al., 2024, p.

19353). Students appreciate the personalized

Saving Writing Classes from Extinction: ChatGPT as Part of the Teaching Pedagogy

501

responses as well as the instant and individualized

feedback which in turn makes the learning experience

more “meaningful and effective” (Karataş et al.,

2024, p. 19358). Teng’s study (2024) shows that

students viewed feedback provided by ChatGPT as

more substantial than their educators’. Its ever-

present accessibility furthermore provides “unlimited

opportunities” for practice (Yang & Li, 2024, p. 8).

Some studies claim it helps “learners to acquire […]

speaking, listening, reading, and writing [skills]” and

improve their “grammar accuracy, vocabulary size,

and formulaic sequence” (Hong, 2023, in Zhao et al.,

2023). Other studies limit its value to “writing and

grammar skills”, but not speaking or listening

(Karataş et al., 2024).

We argue that the literature shows that for classes

that involve writing, ChatGPT can clearly be helpful

for both L1 and L2 writers, when used as a practice

platform and a writing assistant tool (Barrot, 2023;

Karataş et al., 2024; You, 2024). Instead of checking

their writing for linguistic errors, students have time

to invest in content writing (You, 2024).

2.2 Best Practices for Integrating

GenAI Tools in EFL Writing

Classes

Educators do not need to fear being replaced by

GenAI tools, but they need to understand both the role

of ChatGPT and their own in the classroom (Jeon &

Lee, 2023). The literature demonstrates that it is vital

for educators to “adopt innovative pedagogical

practices” and use “a technology-integrated teaching

approach” (Song & Song, 2023, p. 12). However,

literature also shows that educators must carefully

consider the strategies employed and activities

designed. Just as the use of GT requires training, for

instance teaching EFL-students to review word

choice and translation accuracy (Kol et al., 2018; Lee

& Briggs, 2020; Shin & Chon, 2023), so do students

but also educators have to be trained on how to use

GenAI tools (Baek et al., 2024). Reviewing the

literature on the collaboration between educators and

ChatGPT in language education, Jeon and Lee (2023)

stress that benefits to learning depend on the

educators’ decisions on how to integrate GenAI tools

into the classroom, rather than the specific tool alone.

Graefen & Fazal (2024) identify the need for “case-

based advice” on the usage of GenAI (p. 49).

Overall, educators need to understand the

differences in and levels of usage of GenAI tools

within the specific teaching context so that these

complement their pedagogical expertise. Several

publications offer suggestions on this usage, but

overall, it requires educators to use their pedagogical

expertise to a) effectively integrate ChatGPT into

their teaching, b) teach the students to be active and

effective “investigators” and not “passive recipients”

and c) teach students ethical use (Jeon & Lee, 2023,

p. 15885-6). ChatGPT can have four roles within the

classroom: “interlocutor, content provider, teaching

assistant, and evaluator”; within each role, ChatGPT

can have a variety of functions (Jeon and Lee, 2023,

p. 15881). A similar observation is made by Paulson

(2024), who differentiates different usage-levels: “1)

Limited or Guided, 2) Measured, and 3) Integrated”;

the usage of AI is for “1) idea or design aid, 2) critical

thinking or discussion partner, 3) editing or feedback

partner, 4) research aid, 5) personal learning support,

or 6) group work support.”

The level and usage selected depend on the

learning outcomes of the respective task, the students’

familiarity with the topic and their AI literacy skills

(Paulsen, 2024). For instance, limited or measured

use is more appropriate when “learning outcomes

primarily emphasize human capabilities” and low AI

literacy skills and limited subject knowledge require

guidance and scaffolding; a measured use is

appropriate for students with intermediate AI literacy

skills and some familiarity with the subject so that

they can interact with ChatGPT as a “conversation

partner” (Paulsen, 2024). Furthermore, limited or

guided use is recommended when assessment is “AI-

vulnerable” and student output can easily be replaced

with AI output, while the measured use is

recommended when assessment is “AI-tenable” and

students cannot “shortcut” their learning” (Paulsen,

2024).

Clearly, if ChatGPT is to be used as a writing

assistant, educators need to be trained in effective and

responsible use. Since studies have shown that when

educators lack AI-skills, the students’ learning

experience is negatively impacted, educators need “to

attain a high level of proficiency in incorporating

chatbots, such as ChatGPT, into their classrooms to

create inventive, well-structured, and captivating

learning strategies” (Albadarin et al., 2023). They

also need to set “clear rules and regulations regarding

its usage” as well as create tasks where ChatGPT is a

“supportive tool” so that cognitive engagement is not

undermined (Albadarin et al., 2023). The existing

research indicates that to discourage overreliance on

GenAI tools and encourage critical engagement,

educators need to create activities that ensure that

students remain the authors of the work produced and

ChatGPT the assistant or tutor (Yang & Li, 2024).

This can be achieved, as the literature indicates,

by designing tasks with clear guidelines and specific

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

502

instructions on prompt phrasing which leads to

desired output (Barrot, 2023; Bozkurt & Sharma,

2023; Jeon and Lee, 2023; Kayalı et al., 2023;

Rowland, 2023; Yang & Li, Y2024). Educators

need

to clearly convey the rationale for permitting or

requiring GenAI use (Sharpe, 2024).

To prevent

overreliance, ChatGPT should have only a

supplemental role (Albadarin et al., 2023; Barrot,

2023; Jeon and Lee, 2023; Karataş et al., 2024; Song

& Song, 2023). This task for instance could require

students to write their own material and then use

ChatGPT as an editing tool (Barrot, 2023). Instructors

also need to emphasize that when using ChatGPT, the

output should be critically evaluated and not

necessarily accepted, even if presented by ChatGPT

as definitive (Albadarin et al., 2023; Graefen & Fazal,

2024; Kayalı et al., 2023; Kohnke et al., 2023; Yang

& Li, 2024). Tasks therefore should require on the one

hand (L2) students to review output produced by

ChatGPT and on the other educators to maintain

oversight over content generated (Huang & Tan,

2023).

Furthermore, when educators integrate GenAI

into assignments, tasks must encourage relationships

between students and educators. Studies confirm the

importance of “human interaction and collaboration”

(Albadarin et al., 2023). Students in fact do not

appreciate the lack of “human touch” of “ChatGPT’s

responses” (Teng, 2024, p. 9). The literature indicates

that educators need to find a way “that incorporates

both technology and human interaction” (Karataş et

al., 2024, p. 19357). This can be done by using

ChatGPT “in group projects and peer review sessions,

where students refine their drafts with AI-generated

feedback before engaging in peer discussion” (Teng,

2024, p. 9).

Another aspect that requires attention is ethical

and safe usage. As Huang and Tan (2023) point out,

GenAI tools do not “inherently increase the risk of

plagiarism” (p. 1151). Breaches of academic integrity

can be mitigated if students are taught to

appropriately use and attribute AI-produced output

(Barrot, 2023). Educators need to communicate the

extent and manner to which students should employ

ChatGPT (Yang & Li, 2024; You, 2024; Zhao et al.,

2023) and explain the consequences of breaching

academic integrity (Rudolph et al., 2023, in Graefen

& Fazal, 2024). They also need to create an

atmosphere that encourages students to indicate

ChatGPT-output instead of hiding it (Jeon & Lee,

2023) or fearing they breached academic integrity

principles (Bašić et al., 2023, in Graefen & Fazal,

2024). Besides the need to explain ethical usage,

educators need to explain that copyright and privacy

laws do not apply when GenAI tools are used, which

means that device data, usage data, log data as well as

content may be stored (Kayalı et al., 2023; You,

2024).

Educators furthermore need to create assessment

methods that evaluate both student and machine

input. As Rowland (2023) explains, the goal is to

develop and assess both disciplinary knowledge and

AI-usage competence. Different proposals exist, such

as the writing continuum model which assesses

human involvement and use of AI on a one-

dimensional continuum, ranging from no AI-

assistance over to different levels of usage such as

proofreading and writing-assistant, up to entirely AI-

generated (Rowland, 2023). The “stages of writing +

continuum model” is more nuanced, assessing the

extent to which GenAI tools were used within each

writing stage (Rowland, 2023, p. T36). Whatever the

choice, assessment methods need to be

communicated to students beforehand (Sharpe,

2024).

3 ACTIVITIES EXPLAINED

3.1 Rationale for the Proposed

Activities

This manuscript responds to recent studies that

emphasize the need for educators to redefine their

role by including GenAI technology in their

pedagogical approach as well as to contribute to the

creation of a community where experiences and case-

based activities are shared (Kasneci, in Graefen &

Fazal, 2024). We acknowledge that (writing) courses

should teach and promote critical writing, but also

that it is vital to integrate GenAI tools into the

teaching process. We fear that on the one hand, a

refusal to do so only perpetuates surreptitious usage

and that on the other, adamant support of the

traditional college essay and traditional assessment

practices will result in writing courses writing

themselves out of existence.

This manuscript presents two AI-based

activities for a first-year writing course at university,

where the language of instruction is for most students

L2, one designed by the author and one by a

colleague. Both activities demonstrate how a GenAI

tool such as ChatGPT can be used to acquaint

students with effective but also ethical use. The

activities also ensure human collaboration and critical

thinking. This manuscript further provides an

assessment-example that evaluates the writing

Saving Writing Classes from Extinction: ChatGPT as Part of the Teaching Pedagogy

503

process, the use of AI, and the students’ critical

engagement.

The activities have not been implemented in the

classroom since for the time being, our department

prohibits all use of GenAI tools. They are based on

the review of existing literature presented before

which provides evidence for the need to design and

implement Gen-AI based educational technologies in

HE. They were inspired by resources and guidelines

offered for instance by Alby (n.d.), Atlas (2023),

Gibson (n.d.), Hernandez (2024), Rowland (2023);

Schaper (2024), Wang et al. (2024). Similarly,

material provided by universities such as NC State

University (n.d.) and Brandeis University as well as

the Teaching and Learning site of Conestoga, for

instance by Sharpe (2024) and Paulson (2024), was of

immense value.

We designed the activities using the active

learning paradigm and the concept of learning and

writing as a process as our theoretical framework. Our

writing courses are already based on the active

learning paradigm, where flipped classroom

practices, which engage students actively, have been

part of the course design for years. Similarly, our

courses approach learning as a process instead of

focusing only on the end product; we require students

to produce prewriting and a first draft before the final

version. Wegerif’s proposal to approach teaching and

learning as a dialogic practice provided further

theoretical underpinnings. This approach posits that

in the age of the internet, which disrupts the

traditional approach to education as dependent on the

concept of one true reality, education should

introduce students to an environment of multiple

perspectives and uncertainties and encourage them to

engage in dialogue. Cao & Dede’s proposal (2023),

based on Wegerif’s dialogic theory, to employ

GenAI-tools as “dialogue partner” rather than output-

provider (p.7). then offered further theoretical

context. Ethan Mollick’s concept of Co-Intelligence

(2024) also offered theoretical context. Mollick

(2024) posits that we should engage with AI as a

creative partner, a co-worker, co-teacher and coach

since the development of Large Language Models

(LLMs) like ChatGPT means that we have created an

artificial intelligence that can augment human

abilities. For that to happen, according to Mollick

(2024), we need to use AI in our activities, give it a

specific role, maintain oversight, and be prepared for

AI to improve rapidly.

The first activity addresses the challenges that

students, particularly L2 students, face in terms of

transitions and wordiness. The task requires students

to ask ChatGPT to translate an introduction for an

essay written in L1 to L2 and then use it as a language

assistant to improve transitions and reduce wordiness.

In other words, they will use ChatGPT as a translation

tool, not unlike GT, as well as an editing and feedback

partner. The students will not be required to rate the

translation provided; rather, the translation step was

selected for the mere reason that L2 students may find

it difficult to get the ideas they have in their native

language on paper in the English language. They will

evaluate the ChatGPT-output (its translation from L1

to L2) only after receiving specific guidelines.

The second activity addresses the difficulty L1

and L2 students have with effectively integrating

sources into their writing. This is a crucial skill as it

enhances the quality and credibility of students’ work.

However, integrating sources into academic writing

requires both technical skills, such as for citations and

paraphrasing, as well as critical thinking, such as for

evaluating sources and connecting ideas. This activity

is designed to address these concerns using ChatGPT

but also to guide students to use ChatGPT as a

supplementary tool, focusing on ethical usage,

effective prompt engineering, and critical evaluation

of AI-generated content. By doing so, students learn

to integrate sources effectively and take ownership of

their learning process while ensuring academic

integrity.

These activities are considered appropriate for

several reasons. First, both require development

according to specific guidelines and this ensures that

students are also given specific guidelines for

ChatGPT-use. By asking students to carefully and

critically engage with prompt-writing, students are

also obliged to review the assignment and the

evaluation criteria. Second, both tasks do not require

students to develop their own arguments, which

means students are not encouraged to turn to

ChatGPT for critical thinking. Rather, students use

ChatGPT to improve expression as well as source

integration and citations. Educators thereby do not

oblige students to upload their individualized

intellectual property to a platform which does not

guarantee copyright and privacy laws. Third, both

tasks ask are appropriate for collaborative work and

peer review – which, as the literature has shown – is

important for maintaining a healthy relationship

between students and machine learning.

3.2 Rationale for AI-Use

The activities do not give students the option of not

using GenAI tools. They also require students to have

access and upload personal output to an external AI-

platform such as ChatGPT where privacy is not

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

504

ensured. The rationale is that since the literature

indicates that educators need to redefine their role and

include GenAI tools in the learning environment to

prepare students for the future as well as to remain

relevant as educators, GenAI tools must be integrated

into the learning experience and the learning

objectives must involve the use of GenAI tools.

Critical reflection is encouraged through tasks that

involve collaboration in evaluating ChatGPT output

and reflecting on the experience in a final assignment.

By asking students to keep track of the writing

process and document each step, these activities also

emphasize the importance of ethical usage. Students

will be given clear guidelines on how to identify

material written by ChatGPT by submitting

screenshots of the chats and their use of this output.

Concerning issues of access, the rationale is that

almost all students have access to a smartphone.

Should this not be the case, the activities can be done

in a computer lab. Since the activities will be

completed on campus, students will have internet

access through the free college wi-fi. Students will

not be expected to use ChatGPT at home.

Concerning the choice of GenAI tool, ChatGPT

was selected as the most useful tool. We draw

attention to the fact that not every institution has a

private and free AI-platform where privacy is

ensured. The rationale for our choice is that ChatGPT

has been identified in the literature as a popular tool

among students and a substantial number of studies

have used ChatGPT.

3.3 Rationale for Extent of AI-Use

These are AI-supported activities, where students

retain the leading role and are responsible for the final

product. ChatGPT has a supportive role as an

assistant. GenAI could be used with less constraints,

as a tool that exposes students to different ideas and

alternatives, as a participant in a debate, thereby

inviting exciting critical engagement. However, this

choice was made with the rationale that this limited

to measured usage is appropriate since first, the

writing courses are directed at first-year, mostly L2,

students with limited knowledge of academic writing

conventions; as such, the students require clear

guidelines and continuous scaffolding. Second, their

AI literacy skills are usually limited owing to limited

practice in high school. Furthermore, the rationale is

that the proposed activities are meant to be used by

instructors who might also feel insecure and uncertain

about introducing such activities into their classroom.

3.3 Rationale for Duration of Activities

By being designed for three classes, these activities

engage students in process writing. The scaffolding

approach, which also breaks down the assessment

into smaller tasks, encourages students to actively

engage in each class and thereby prevents them from

feeling overwhelmed. Independent writing is

promoted by asking students to employ feedback they

have received from both human and machine.

3.4 Learning Outcomes

Effective technology-integration into teaching has

been shown to involve the creation of assignments

which include the use of this technology in the

learning outcomes. For this reason, the learning

outcomes of our activities specify, beyond the

specific writing skills that will be acquired, also that

students will be able to:

1. Identify key aspects of [... writing task(s)].

2. Understand the limitations and dangers of

ChatGPT.

3. Employ ChatGPT in contextually appropriate

ways regarding extent and level of usage.

4. Demonstrate transparency and academic

integrity about ChatGPT-use.

5. Formulate nuanced and effective prompts.

6. Analyze ChatGPT output thoughtfully.

7. Use ChatGPT to revise writing for clarity,

coherence, and academic style.

8. Arrive at a holistic learning experience by

reflecting on the writing process and the use of

ChatGPT.

3.5 Assessment

The designed grading rubrics reflect the integration of

ChatGPT into the learning environment. It is a two-

tiered evaluation process that on the one hand

evaluates the students’ documentation of

collaboration with ChatGPT as well as engagement

with and evaluation of ChatGPT output during the

writing process, while on the other, it also requires

critically reflection on the learning experience. This

can be achieved by approaching the first part as

formative writing and the second part as summative

writing; or, the whole proposed activity can be

considered as formative writing, leading up to a

summative essay-assignment. In either case, the

assessment, communicated to students beforehand,

Saving Writing Classes from Extinction: ChatGPT as Part of the Teaching Pedagogy

505

ensures that students understand the repercussions of

inappropriate use of such tools.

Points:

0: None

1: Basic

2: Satisfactory to competent

3: Good

4: Very good

Table 1: Documentation of the writing process.

0 1 2 3 4

Submission of all required

documents

Assigned prompt

reproduction

Collaborative engagement

with ChatGPT output

Individual writing

Table 2: Critical reflection of the writing process.

0 1 2 3 4

Description

Reflection

Structure

Language

4 SAMPLE INSTRUCTIONS

PAGE

Note: This document may be downloaded and

reused as long as it is cited as a model

Guidelines for Instructors

The activities were created for a Writing course but

can be adjusted to any class involve writing. The

activities should be completed over the course of

three 50-minute classes and the steps outlined below

be followed. Students should be provided with

activity guidelines in print and/or electronic format

from the start of the activity.

Guidelines for Students

Assignment Rationale

As students in a higher educational institution, you

are expected to produce several written assignments.

However, many of you may not have been exposed to

academic writing in high school. Furthermore, for

many of you, English is a second language which

makes writing even more challenging. You may have

considered using generative AI (GenAI) tools such as

ChatGPT, hoping to achieve a higher grade, even if

you know this is considered cheating. This

assignment is intended to show you how to employ

AI-tools in an effective as well as ethical manner,

thereby helping you acquire AI-literacy skills that you

will need in your future career.

Choice of GenAI Tool

ChatGPT was chosen to acquaint you with GenAI-

tools. The reason is its high accessibility due to free

access and user-friendly interface. You should not use

other AI-tools for this activity.

Activity Structure

This assignment will be completed over three classes.

Your task will be to [...]. At the end of the assignment,

you will submit a reflective essay, analyzing and

evaluating your learning experience.

Security Considerations

Be aware that privacy and intellectual property are

not protected on free GenAI platforms. Do not upload

full assignments, yours or someone else’s, to such

platforms. Furthermore, since device, usage and log

data are stored, do not share personal information,

yours or someone else’s.

Authorized and Unauthorized Use of ChatGPT

The extent of permitted use of ChatGPT and the

required documentation apply to this course and

activity. Other courses may have other policies. See

College policies on academic integrity: [link]

All use of ChatGPT needs to be documented.

Authorized use:

• Translation.

• Identification of linguistic weaknesses.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

506

• Recommendations for linguistic

improvements, transitions, and source

integration.

Unauthorized use:

• Production of complete essay versions

• Use of other GenAI tools

As defined in the Student Handbook, the

unauthorized use of GenAI tools is considered to

grant unfair advantage and to constitute an academic

offence. As such, and just as breaches of academic

integrity, any unauthorized use is reported to the

Committee on Standing and Conduct. If you have any

questions regarding un/authorized use, please contact

me.

Learning Objectives

[...]

Submissions & Evaluation

At the end of each class, you will upload material

produced by you and a copy of your ChatGPT chat

sessions to Blackboard (BB), E-Portfolio. Once the

three-class activity has been completed, you will

submit to Bb, Dropbox, a reflection paragraph.

Assessment Rubrics

[...]

5 SAMPLE ACTIVITIES

5.1 Activity 1, Phrased for Students

Table 3: Sample Activity 1.

Class 1

• Write the introduction in your native

language, using the prompt received. 20 min.

• To make sure that you use ChatGPT ethically

and effectively, you must:

o Be clear and straightforward in articulating

what you want it to do and not do.

o Set the context.

o Include key details.

o Do not include personal information.

• Tell ChatGPT in

native lan

ethat:

o You are a student at a university where

English is the language of instructions, in a

writing course, in the first semester.

o You have to write an introduction to a

[specify type of] essay that [essay task].

o You are uploading the introduction to this

essay in your native language.

o You need a translation into English.

o It should not change or improve anything.

• Upload to ChatGPT the prompt, the

introduction in your native language and the

grading criteria.

• Read ChatGPT output (translation). 5 min.

• Class discussion. 15-20 min.

• End of class: Upload the conversation with

ChatGPT to E-Portfolio.

Learning outcomes of this class are to:

o Write effective and ethical prompts for

ChatGPT.

o Use ChatGPT as a writing assistant, but not

an author.

Class 2

• You receive a handout on wordiness and

transitions. Discussion. 20 min.

• Return to the ChatGPT-output written in the

previous class (the translation) and using the

handouts received, work with a peer to locate

instances of wordiness and weak transitions in

each other’s translated introductions. 20 min.

• Ask ChatGPT to identify weaknesses

regarding wordiness and transitions in its own

output, but not provide suggestions. 5 min.

• With your peer, in bullet form, compare what

you identified and what ChatGPT identified –

note down similarities and differences: 15 min.

• End of class: Upload to E-Portfolio:

o Original translation with weak instances

underlined and highlighted.

o ChatGPT output on weaknesses.

o Your comparison and notes.

Learning outcomes of this class are to:

• Identify and improve weak transitions and

instances of wordiness.

• Use ChatGPT as a writing assistant, but not an

author.

Saving Writing Classes from Extinction: ChatGPT as Part of the Teaching Pedagogy

507

Table 3: Sample Activity 1 (cont.).

Class 3

• Ask ChatGPT for improvement suggestions. 5

min.

• Rewrite the passage on your own, using the

handouts received, the work done in class, and

the suggestions provided by ChatGPT. 20 min.

• Upload the passage to E-Portfolio.

• Ask ChatGPT for a revised version of the

original passage it wrote, addressing the

weaknesses identified and suggestions offered.

• With your peer, compare each other’s rewritten

passage with that of ChatGPT and identify

differences and similarities. Write these down

in bullet form. 20 min.

• End of class: Upload the document with the

similarities and differences to E-Portfolio.

Learning outcomes of this class are to:

• Engage in process writing.

• Use feedback to revise.

• En

e with ChatGPT criticall

Reflective assignment

• Write a reflective paragraph discussing the

value of working with ChatGPT and its output.

You should now consider in three body

paragraphs:

• Regarding your writing in general:

o Any challenges you experienced initially

when asked to write the introduction.

o The experience of the revision process in

general.

• Regarding ChatGPT use:

o The experience of using ChatGPT as an

assistant.

• Regarding ChatGPT output:

o The value of using ChatGPT.

o The limitations of using ChatGPT.

• Submit this writing to Dropbox.

Learning outcomes of this class are to:

• Analyze the writing process and the

engagement with ChatGPT.

• Connect your thinking to your writing to arrive

at a holistic learning experience.

• Use AI-tools as an assistant.

• Use AI-tools ethicall

5.2 Activity 2, Phrased for Instructors

Table 4: Sample Activity 2.

Class 1: Writing and Analysis

1. Introduction to the task (10 min):

Explain the goal of integrating sources into an

academic essay. Provide a handout with

guidelines on effective source integration (e.g.,

quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing).

2. Writing Exercise (20 min):

- Students write a short paragraph integrating at

least two sources provided by the instructor (e.g.,

excerpts from articles or books).

- Students are told to focus on using proper

citation methods (APA) and connecting sources to

a central argument.

3. AI-Assisted Review (15 min):

- Students upload their paragraph to ChatGPT,

asking for suggestions on improving integration,

transitions, and clarity.

Example Prompt for ChatGPT

Here is a paragraph where I’ve integrated two

sources. Please identify areas where the

integration of sources, transitions, or clarity could

be improved, and suggest how I might revise it to

strengthen my argument.

- Students review ChatGPT's suggestions, noting

what aligns with the guidelines provided.

4. Class Discussion (5 min):

Students are encouraged to discuss common

issues identified by ChatGPT and how they relate

to effective source inte

ration.

Class 2: Peer Review and Revision

1. Review of Key Concepts (10 min):

Provide examples of strong and weak source

integration. Discuss strategies for improving.

2. Peer Review (20 min):

- Students exchange paragraphs with peers.

- Each pair identifies areas where source

integration could be clearer, better cited, or more

effectively connected to the argument.

3. Revision (20 min):

Using feedback from their peers and suggestions

from ChatGPT, students revise paragraphs.

4. Submission:

Revised paragraphs are uploaded to the Bb for

instructo

feedback.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

508

Table 4: Sample Activity 2 (cont.).

Class 3: Reflection and Comparison

1. Final AI Check (10 min):

- Students ask ChatGPT to rewrite their revised

paragraphs for clarity and conciseness.

- They compare ChatGPT’s version with their

own, noting differences and improvements.

2. Group Activity (20 min):

In small groups, students discuss the strengths and

weaknesses of their paragraphs versus ChatGPT's

version.

3. Reflection Writing (20 min):

- Each student writes a reflective paragraph

discussing their experience with source

integration and how ChatGPT influenced their

learning process.

- Questions to guide reflection:

- What did you learn about integrating sources?

- How did ChatGPT’s suggestions help or hinder

your understanding?

- What would you do differently in future

assignments?

4. Submission:

All materials (original, revised, ChatGPT version,

and reflection) are compiled and submitted as part

of the activity portfolio.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Despite the significant body of literature emphasizing

the need to integrate AI tools into the teaching process

and improve the students’ literacy skills, our

experience demonstrates that many instructors are

still hesitant to do so. Reasons range from a fear of

rendering human educators and writing classes

obsolete to a fear of the impact on student learning

and integrity up to a simple lack of knowledge of how

to use GenAI tools. It is hoped that this manuscript

can contribute to a community that shares experiences

on the integration of GenAI into the classroom by

providing two very specific examples that might help

such hesitant educators. The choice of ChatGPT is

only indicative and we agree with the literature that

emphasizes that the educators’ focus should be the

effective integration of GenAI tools into their

teaching pedagogy rather than the choice of a specific

GenAI tool.

Looking into the future, we see the only solution

of remaining relevant as writing educators and

ensuring that students do not sacrifice their critical

thinking and their writing skills to the ease of GenAI

tools such as ChatGPT. We also agree with the

literature, with the caveat that familiarity with usage

must first be established, that suggests that using

GenAI tools as a creative partner and a dialogue

partner will usher in exciting new educational

opportunities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank my colleague Dr. Sakellari for the second

activity as well as her suggestions. I wish

circumstances would have allowed her to be more

involved.

GenAI tools were not used to write this

manuscript. ChatGPT was used only in the context of

the presented activities.

REFERENCES

Albadarin, Y., Saqr, M., Pope, N., & Tukianen, M. (2024).

A systematic literature review of empirical research on

ChatGPT in education. Discover Education, 3(1).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2

Alby, C. (n.d.). AI prompts for teaching: A spell book.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lo4aeiWT4f5xh

csAbWAfQRITghBhcmFN2m-

JEX5OkJA/edit?tab=t.0

Atlas, S. (2023). ChatGPT for higher education and

professional development: A guide to conversational

AI. College of Business Faculty Publications.

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs/548?utm_

source=digitalcommons.uri.edu%2Fcba_facpubs%2F5

48&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverP

ages

Baek, C., Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2024). “ChatGPT

seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and

perceptions of generative AI. (2024). Computers and

Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100294

Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023). Not quite eye to AI: Student

and teacher perspectives on the use of generative

artificial intelligence in the writing process.

International Journal of Educational Technology in

Higher Education, 20, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/

s41239-023-00427-0

Barrot, J.S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language

writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745

Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2023). Generative AI and

Prompt Engineering: The Art of Whispering to Let the

Genie Out of the Algorithmic World. Asian Journal of

Distance Education, 18(2), i-vii. https://www.asianjde.

com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/749

Brandeis University. (n.d.). Center for teaching and

Learning.

Saving Writing Classes from Extinction: ChatGPT as Part of the Teaching Pedagogy

509

https://www.brandeis.edu/teaching/resources/syllabus/

ai-statements.html

Cao, L, & Dede, C. (2023). Navigating a world of

generative AI: Suggestions for educators. Next Level

Lab. Harvard University. https://nextlevellab.gse.

harvard.edu/2023/07/28/navigating-a-world-of-

generative-ai-suggestions-for-educators/

Chang, P., Chen, P.-J., & Lai, L.-L. (2024). Recursive

editing with Google Translate: the impact on writing

and error correction. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 37(7), 2116–2141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09

588221.2022.2147192

Chung, E. S., & Ahn, S. (2021). The effect of using machine

translation on linguistic features in L2 writing across

proficiency levels and text genres. Computer Assisted

Language Learning, 34(3), 2239–2264. https://doi.org/

10.1080/09588221.2020.1871029

Gibson, R. (n.d). AI prompt book. https://rise.articulate.

com/share/rd3oV4df9xf5hr_7gVtBL_O4_ZcDzU-K#/

Graefen, B., & Fazal, N. (2024). From Chat bots to Virtual

Tutors: An Overview of Chat GPT's Role in the Future

of Education. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 15(2),

43-52. https://doi.org/10.51847/TOuppjEDSX

Hernandez, M. (2024). Generative AI prompt book.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xRAmnya_exvq

CcIwTV78JAZqCpX5jz2ko574R3SWuwE/edit?tab=t.

0#heading=h.f234k44nnc1c

Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in

scientific communication: writing better scientific

review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research,

13(4), 1148–54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/

PMC10164801/

Jeon, J., & Lee, S. (2023). Large language models in

education: A focus on the complementary relationship

between human teachers and ChatGPT. Education and

Information Technologies: The Official Journal of the

IFIP Technical Committee on Education, 28(12), 15873–

92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1

Karataş, F., Yaşar Abedi, F., Ozek Gunyel, F., Karadeniz, D.

& Kuzgun, Y. (2024). Incorporating AI in foreign

language education: An investigation into ChatGPT’s

effect on foreign language learners. Education and

Information Technologies, 29, 19343–66. https://link.

springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-024-12574-6

Kayalı, B., Yavuz, M., Balat, S., & Çalışan, M. (2023).

Investigation of student experiences with ChatGPT-

supported online learning applications in higher

education. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 39(5), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.14742/

ajet.8915

Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT

for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868

Kol, S., Schcolnik, M., & Spector-Cohen, E. (2018).

Google Translate in academic writing courses. The

EUROCALL Review, 26(2), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.49

95/eurocall.2018.10140

Lee, Sangmin-Michelle; Briggs, Neil. (2020). Effects of

using machine translation to mediate the revision

process of Korean university students’ academic

writing. ReCALL First View, 33(1), 18–33.

doi:10.1017/S0958344020000191

Li, H. (2023). Effects of a ChatGPT-based flipped learning

guiding approach on learners’ courseware project

performances and perceptions. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 39(5), 40–58. https://doi.org/

10.14742/ajet.8923

Mollick, E. (2024). Co-intelligence: living and working

with AI. WH Allen.

NC State University. (n.d.). Teaching resources.

https://teaching-resources.delta.ncsu.edu/designing-

assignments-with-ai-in-mind/

Paulsen, E. (2024). The optional use of generative artificial

intelligence (GenAI) in assessments. Faculty Learning

Hub. Teaching and Learning Conestoga.

https://tlconestoga.ca/spectrum-ai-learning-tasks/

Prananta, A. W.., Megahati S, R. R. P., Susanto, N., &

Raule, J. H. (2023). Transforming Education and

Learning through Chat GPT: A Systematic Literature

Review. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(11),

1031–1037. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i11.54

Rowland, D. R. (2023). Two frameworks to guide

discussions around levels of acceptable use of

generative AI in student academic research and writing.

Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 17(1),

T31-T69. https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/artic

le/view/915/435435577

Schaper, N. (2024). Using ChatGPT to Create

Constructively Aligned Assessment Tasks and Criteria

in the Context of Higher Education Teaching. Artificial

Intelligence and Education - Shaping the Future of

Learning. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.1005129

Sharpe, A. (2024). The optional use of generative artifical

intelligence (GenAI) in assessment. Faculty Learning

Hub. Teaching and Learning Conestoga.

https://tlconestoga.ca/the-optional-use-of-generative-

artificial-intelligence-genai-in-assessments/

Shin, D., & Chon, Y. V. (2023). Second language learners’

post-editing strategies for machine translation errors.

Language Learning & Technology, 27(1), 1–25.

https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73523

Song, C., & Song, Y. (2023). Enhancing academic writing

skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of

ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL

students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/

10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843

Teng, M. F. (2024). “ChatGPT is the companion, not

enemies”: EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences in

using ChatGPT for feedback in writing. Computers and

Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100270

Thompson, K., Corrin, L., & Lodge, J. M. (2023). AI in

tertiary education: Progress on research and practice.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2023,

39(5), 1-7. https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/

view/9251/2054

Vera, F. (2023). Enhancing English language learning in

undergraduate students using ChatGPT: A quasi-

experimental study. Red Internacional de

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

510

Investigadores en Educación, I Congreso Internacional

de Aprendizaje Activo CIAA 2023, pp. 18-21.

https://apolo.unab.edu.co/ws/portalfiles/portal/272402

22/Libro-de-actas-CIAA-2023.pdf#page=18

Wang, S. J., Bankard, J. S., Bui, E., & Nye, B. (2024).

Writing with AI: What college students learned from

utilizing ChatGPT for a writing assignment. Education

Sciences, 14(9). 976. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci

14090976

Wegerif, R. 1 (2019). Toward a dialogic theory of education

for the internet age. In Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., Major,

L., Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Major, L. The Routledge

International Handbook of Research on Dialogic

Education (1st ed, pp.1-13). Routledge. https://www.

perlego.com/book/1596775

Yang, L, & Li, R. (2024). ChatGPT for L2 learning: Current

status and implications. System, 124. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.system.2024.103351

You, S. (2024). A systematic review of the impact of

ChatGPT on higher education. International Journal of

Technology, 3(1), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/

IJTEE.343528

Zhao, R., Yunus, M. M., & Rafiq, K. R. M. (2023). The

impact of the use of ChatGPT in enhancing students'

engagement and learning outcomes in higher education:

A review. International Journal of Academic Research

in Business and Social Sciences, 13(12), 3734-3744.

https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i12/20258

Saving Writing Classes from Extinction: ChatGPT as Part of the Teaching Pedagogy

511