Latest news with #HigherEducationPolicyInstitute
Scroll.in
23-05-2025
- Scroll.in
AI is reshaping how students write – here's how it can be used creatively
I'm a writing professor who sees artificial intelligence as more of an opportunity for students, rather than a threat. That sets me apart from some of my colleagues, who fear that AI is accelerating a glut of superficial content, impeding critical thinking and hindering creative expression. They worry that students are simply using it out of sheer laziness or, worse, to cheat. Perhaps that's why so many students are afraid to admit that they use ChatGPT. In The New Yorker magazine, historian D Graham Burnett recounts asking his undergraduate and graduate students at Princeton whether they'd ever used ChatGPT. No one raised their hand. 'It's not that they're dishonest,' he writes. 'It's that they're paralyzed.' Students seem to have internalised the belief that using AI for their coursework is somehow wrong. Yet, whether my colleagues like it or not, most college students are using it. A February 2025 report from the Higher Education Policy Institute in the UK found that 92% of university students are using AI in some form. As early as August 2023 – a mere nine months after ChatGPT's public release – more than half of first-year students at Kennesaw State University, the public research institution where I teach, reported that they believed that AI is the future of writing. It's clear that students aren't going to magically stop using AI. So I think it's important to point out some ways in which AI can actually be a useful tool that enhances, rather than hampers, the writing process. Helping with the busywork A February 2025 OpenAI report on ChatGPT use among college-aged users found that more than one-quarter of their ChatGPT conversations were education-related. The report also revealed that the top five uses for students were writing-centered: starting papers and projects (49%); summarising long texts (48%); brainstorming creative projects (45%); exploring new topics (44%); and revising writing (44%). These figures challenge the assumption that students use AI merely to cheat or write entire papers. Instead, it suggests they are leveraging AI to free up more time to engage in deeper processes and metacognitive behaviors – deliberately organising ideas, honing arguments and refining style. If AI allows students to automate routine cognitive tasks – like information retrieval or ensuring that verb tenses are consistent – it doesn't mean they're thinking less. It means their thinking is changing. Of course, students can misuse AI if they use the technology passively, reflexively accepting its outputs and ideas. And overreliance on ChatGPT can erode a student's unique voice or style. However, as long as students learn how to use AI intentionally, this shift can be seen as an opportunity, rather than a loss. Clarifying the creative vision It has also become clear that AI, when used responsibly, can augment human creativity. For example, science comedy writer Sarah Rose Siskind recently gave a talk to Harvard students about her creative process. She spoke about how she uses ChatGPT to brainstorm joke setups and explore various comedic scenarios, which allows her to focus on crafting punchlines and refining her comedic timing. Note how Siskin used AI in ways that didn't supplant the human touch. Instead of replacing her creativity, AI amplified it by providing structured and consistent feedback, giving her more time to polish her jokes. Another example is the Rhetorical Prompting Method, which I developed alongside fellow Kennesaw State University researchers. Designed for university students and adult learners, it's a framework for conversing with an AI chatbot, one that emphasizes the importance of agency in guiding AI outputs. When writers use precise language to prompt, critical thinking to reflect, and intentional revision to sculpt inputs and outputs, they direct AI to help them generate content that aligns with their vision. There's still a process The Rhetorical Prompting Method mirrors best practices in process writing, which encourages writers to revisit, refine and revise their drafts. When using ChatGPT, though, it's all about thoughtfully revisiting and revising prompts and outputs. For instance, say a student wants to create a compelling PSA for social media to encourage campus composting. She considers her audience. She prompts ChatGPT to draft a short, upbeat message in under 50 words that's geared to college students. Reading the first output, she notices it lacks urgency. So she revises the prompt to emphasise immediate impact. She also adds some additional specifics that are important to her message, such as the location of an information session. The final PSA reads: 'Every scrap counts! Join campus composting today at the Commons. Your leftovers aren't trash – they're tomorrow's gardens. Help our university bloom brighter, one compost bin at a time.' The Rhetorical Prompting Method isn't groundbreaking; it's riffing on a process that's been tested in the writing studies discipline for decades. But I've found that it works by directing writers how to intentionally prompt. I know this because we asked users about their experiences. In an ongoing study, my colleagues and I polled 133 people who used the Rhetorical Prompting Method for their academic and professional writing: 92% reported that it helped them evaluate writing choices before and during their process. 75% said that they were able to maintain their authentic voice while using AI assistance. 89% responded that it helped them think critically about their writing. The data suggests that learners take their writing seriously. Their responses reveal that they are thinking carefully about their writing styles and strategies. While this data is preliminary, we continue to gather responses in different courses, disciplines and learning environments. All of this is to say that, while there are divergent points of view over when and where it's appropriate to use AI, students are certainly using it. And being provided with a framework can help them think more deeply about their writing. AI, then, is not just a tool that's useful for trivial tasks. It can be an asset for creativity. If today's students – who are actively using AI to write, revise and explore ideas – see AI as a writing partner, I think it's a good idea for professors to start thinking about helping them learn the best ways to work with it.
Fast Company
08-05-2025
- Fast Company
How AI is reshaping student writing
I'm a writing professor who sees artificial intelligence as more of an opportunity for students, rather than a threat. That sets me apart from some of my colleagues, who fear that AI is accelerating a glut of superficial content, impeding critical thinking and hindering creative expression. They worry that students are simply using it out of sheer laziness or, worse, to cheat. Perhaps that's why so many students are afraid to admit that they use ChatGPT. In The New Yorker magazine, historian D. Graham Burnett recounts asking his undergraduate and graduate students at Princeton whether they'd ever used ChatGPT. No one raised their hand. 'It's not that they're dishonest,' he writes. 'It's that they're paralyzed.' Students seem to have internalized the belief that using AI for their coursework is somehow wrong. Yet, whether my colleagues like it or not, most college students are using it. A February 2025 report from the Higher Education Policy Institute in the U.K. found that 92% of university students are using AI in some form. As early as August 2023—a mere nine months after ChatGPT's public release—more than half of first-year students at Kennesaw State University, the public research institution where I teach, reported that they believed that AI is the future of writing. It's clear that students aren't going to magically stop using AI. So I think it's important to point out some ways in which AI can actually be a useful tool that enhances, rather than hampers, the writing process. Helping with the busywork A February 2025 OpenAI report on ChatGPT use among college-aged users found that more than one-quarter of their ChatGPT conversations were education-related. The report also revealed that the top five uses for students were writing-centered: starting papers and projects (49%); summarizing long texts (48%); brainstorming creative projects (45%); exploring new topics (44%); and revising writing (44%). These figures challenge the assumption that students use AI merely to cheat or write entire papers. Instead, it suggests they are leveraging AI to free up more time to engage in deeper processes and metacognitive behaviors —deliberately organizing ideas, honing arguments and refining style. If AI allows students to automate routine cognitive tasks—like information retrieval or ensuring that verb tenses are consistent—it doesn't mean they're thinking less. It means their thinking is changing. Of course, students can misuse AI if they use the technology passively, reflexively accepting its outputs and ideas. And overreliance on ChatGPT can erode a student's unique voice or style. However, as long as students learn how to use AI intentionally, this shift can be seen as an opportunity, rather than a loss, Clarifying the creative vision It has also become clear that AI, when used responsibly, can augment human creativity. For example, science comedy writer Sarah Rose Siskind recently gave a talk to Harvard students about her creative process. She spoke about how she uses ChatGPT to brainstorm joke setups and explore various comedic scenarios, which allows her to focus on crafting punchlines and refining her comedic timing. Note how Siskin used AI in ways that didn't supplant the human touch. Instead of replacing her creativity, AI amplified it by providing structured and consistent feedback, giving her more time to polish her jokes. Another example is the Rhetorical Prompting Method, which I developed alongside fellow Kennesaw State University researchers. Designed for university students and adult learners, it's a framework for conversing with an AI chatbot, one that emphasizes the importance of agency in guiding AI outputs. When writers use precise language to prompt, critical thinking to reflect, and intentional revision to sculpt inputs and outputs, they direct AI to help them generate content that aligns with their vision. There's still a process The Rhetorical Prompting Method mirrors best practices in process writing, which encourages writers to revisit, refine and revise their drafts. When using ChatGPT, though, it's all about thoughtfully revisiting and revising prompts and outputs. For instance, say a student wants to create a compelling PSA for social media to encourage campus composting. She considers her audience. She prompts ChatGPT to draft a short, upbeat message in under 50 words that's geared to college students. Reading the first output, she notices it lacks urgency. So she revises the prompt to emphasize immediate impact. She also adds some additional specifics that are important to her message, such as the location of an information session. The final PSA reads: 'Every scrap counts! Join campus composting today at the Commons. Your leftovers aren't trash—they're tomorrow's gardens. Help our university bloom brighter, one compost bin at a time.' The Rhetorical Prompting Method isn't groundbreaking; it's riffing on a process that's been tested in the writing studies discipline for decades. But I've found that it works by directing writers how to intentionally prompt. I know this because we asked users about their experiences. In an ongoing study, my colleagues and I polled 133 people who used the Rhetorical Prompting Method for their academic and professional writing: 92% reported that it helped them evaluate writing choices before and during their process. 75% said that they were able to maintain their authentic voice while using AI assistance. 89% responded that it helped them think critically about their writing. The data suggests that learners take their writing seriously. Their responses reveal that they are thinking carefully about their writing styles and strategies. While this data is preliminary, we continue to gather responses in different courses, disciplines and learning environments. All of this is to say that, while there are divergent points of view over when and where it's appropriate to use AI, students are certainly using it. And being provided with a framework can help them think more deeply about their writing.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Yahoo
AI isn't replacing student writing – but it is reshaping it
I'm a writing professor who sees artificial intelligence as more of an opportunity for students, rather than a threat. That sets me apart from some of my colleagues, who fear that AI is accelerating a glut of superficial content, impeding critical thinking and hindering creative expression. They worry that students are simply using it out of sheer laziness or, worse, to cheat. Perhaps that's why so many students are afraid to admit that they use ChatGPT. In The New Yorker magazine, historian D. Graham Burnett recounts asking his undergraduate and graduate students at Princeton whether they'd ever used ChatGPT. No one raised their hand. 'It's not that they're dishonest,' he writes. 'It's that they're paralyzed.' Students seem to have internalized the belief that using AI for their coursework is somehow wrong. Yet, whether my colleagues like it or not, most college students are using it. A February 2025 report from the Higher Education Policy Institute in the U.K. found that 92% of university students are using AI in some form. As early as August 2023 – a mere nine months after ChatGPT's public release – more than half of first-year students at Kennesaw State University, the public research institution where I teach, reported that they believed that AI is the future of writing. It's clear that students aren't going to magically stop using AI. So I think it's important to point out some ways in which AI can actually be a useful tool that enhances, rather than hampers, the writing process. Helping with the busywork A February 2025 OpenAI report on ChatGPT use among college-aged users found that more than one-quarter of their ChatGPT conversations were education-related. The report also revealed that the top five uses for students were writing-centered: starting papers and projects (49%); summarizing long texts (48%); brainstorming creative projects (45%); exploring new topics (44%); and revising writing (44%). These figures challenge the assumption that students use AI merely to cheat or write entire papers. Instead, it suggests they are leveraging AI to free up more time to engage in deeper processes and metacognitive behaviors – deliberately organizing ideas, honing arguments and refining style. If AI allows students to automate routine cognitive tasks – like information retrieval or ensuring that verb tenses are consistent – it doesn't mean they're thinking less. It means their thinking is changing. Of course, students can misuse AI if they use the technology passively, reflexively accepting its outputs and ideas. And overreliance on ChatGPT can erode a student's unique voice or style. However, as long as students learn how to use AI intentionally, this shift can be seen as an opportunity, rather than a loss, Clarifying the creative vision It has also become clear that AI, when used responsibly, can augment human creativity. For example, science comedy writer Sarah Rose Siskind recently gave a talk to Harvard students about her creative process. She spoke about how she uses ChatGPT to brainstorm joke setups and explore various comedic scenarios, which allows her to focus on crafting punchlines and refining her comedic timing. Note how Siskin used AI in ways that didn't supplant the human touch. Instead of replacing her creativity, AI amplified it by providing structured and consistent feedback, giving her more time to polish her jokes. Another example is the Rhetorical Prompting Method, which I developed alongside fellow Kennesaw State University researchers. Designed for university students and adult learners, it's a framework for conversing with an AI chatbot, one that emphasizes the importance of agency in guiding AI outputs. When writers use precise language to prompt, critical thinking to reflect, and intentional revision to sculpt inputs and outputs, they direct AI to help them generate content that aligns with their vision. There's still a process The Rhetorical Prompting Method mirrors best practices in process writing, which encourages writers to revisit, refine and revise their drafts. When using ChatGPT, though, it's all about thoughtfully revisiting and revising prompts and outputs. For instance, say a student wants to create a compelling PSA for social media to encourage campus composting. She considers her audience. She prompts ChatGPT to draft a short, upbeat message in under 50 words that's geared to college students. Reading the first output, she notices it lacks urgency. So she revises the prompt to emphasize immediate impact. She also adds some additional specifics that are important to her message, such as the location of an information session. The final PSA reads: 'Every scrap counts! Join campus composting today at the Commons. Your leftovers aren't trash – they're tomorrow's gardens. Help our university bloom brighter, one compost bin at a time.' The Rhetorical Prompting Method isn't groundbreaking; it's riffing on a process that's been tested in the writing studies discipline for decades. But I've found that it works by directing writers how to intentionally prompt. I know this because we asked users about their experiences. In an ongoing study, my colleagues and I polled 133 people who used the Rhetorical Prompting Method for their academic and professional writing: 92% reported that it helped them evaluate writing choices before and during their process. 75% said that they were able to maintain their authentic voice while using AI assistance. 89% responded that it helped them think critically about their writing. The data suggests that learners take their writing seriously. Their responses reveal that they are thinking carefully about their writing styles and strategies. While this data is preliminary, we continue to gather responses in different courses, disciplines and learning environments. All of this is to say that, while there are divergent points of view over when and where it's appropriate to use AI, students are certainly using it. And being provided with a framework can help them think more deeply about their writing. AI, then, is not just a tool that's useful for trivial tasks. It can be an asset for creativity. If today's students – who are actively using AI to write, revise and explore ideas – see AI as a writing partner, I think it's a good idea for professors to start thinking about helping them learn the best ways to work with it. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jeanne Beatrix Law, Kennesaw State University Read more: Jeanne Beatrix Law does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Yahoo
Young men drawn to toxic masculinity because schools are not ‘boy-positive', report says
Young men are being drawn to toxic masculinity because schools are not 'boy-positive', a report has claimed. Research by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) has found men are being left behind in society because they underachieve at school. It estimated that about half a million men have missed out on higher education in the past decade. The report warns of the risk that these 'undereducated men' will be driven towards 'political extremes' if male underachievement in schools is not resolved. It comes as the Netflix series Adolescence receives critical acclaim for its plot, which centres on a boy, 13, who is arrested for stabbing a teenage girl after being 'indoctrinated' by misogynist influencers. Mary Curnock Cook, former chief executive of Ucas, the university applications body, wrote in the report's foreword that the rise of 'toxic masculinity' should not be surprising given male educational underachievement. 'We want girls to have role models to motivate them to achieve, yet we seem to be intensely relaxed about so many boys growing up with few male teachers, often in single-parent households (where the single parent is usually a mum, not a dad) and in places where their doctor, the vet and the solicitor are also increasingly likely to be female,' she wrote. 'Is it any wonder they look to social media for their icons and heroes, and are drawn too often to highly toxic versions of masculinity?' Ms Curnock Cook cited research from the think tank Civitas, which indicated that 24 per cent of parents believed boys at their child's school were made to feel ashamed of being male. The report said 'lower educational aspirations, a shortage of role models of the same sex and bias among teachers' contributed to boys achieving less at school than girls. It called for a series of measures to raise standards by creating a 'boy-positive environment' in schools and encouraging boys into female-dominated professions like care, teaching and nursing. 'It is worth noting that some specific changes aimed at a boy-positive environment could be cheap and straightforward to deliver – such as marking International Men's Day,' it reads. The report, sponsored by Ulster University, also recommended the creation of a junior minister for men and boys who would focus on the gulf in attainment, which it said was 'one of the most egregious issues' in education. Another recommended measure was for university admissions departments to recognise men as a 'disadvantaged group'. Mark Brooks, the report's co-author, said boys' underachievement was 'a truth that dare not speak its name'. 'Each year, it can be clearly seen when the exam results and higher education participation rates are published,' he said. 'Nationally, though, there is little discussion or accountability, let alone any action.' Nick Hillman, director of the Hepi and the report's co-author, added: 'Education holds the key to unlocking more equal opportunities across our society, but boys and men currently fall behind girls and women at each stage of education, from infant class to PhDs. 'The resolute focus that is generally put on educational differences by class and ethnicity is generally missing when it comes to the sex of learners.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
20-03-2025
- Telegraph
Young men drawn to toxic masculinity because schools are not ‘boy-positive', report says
Young men are being drawn to toxic masculinity because schools are not 'boy-positive', a report has claimed. Research by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) has found men are being left behind in society because they underachieve at school. It estimated that about half a million men have missed out on higher education in the past decade. The report warns of the risk that these 'undereducated men' will be driven towards 'political extremes' if male underachievement in schools is not resolved. It comes as the Netflix series Adolescence receives critical acclaim for its plot, which centres on a boy, 13, who is arrested for stabbing a teenage girl after being 'indoctrinated' by misogynist influencers. Mary Curnock Cook, former chief executive of Ucas, the university applications body, wrote in the report's foreword that the rise of 'toxic masculinity' should not be surprising given male educational underachievement.
