Skip to content
Home » Teaching with Technology » Generative AI » Teaching in the Age of Generative AI: Supporting GenAI-Mindful Writing

Teaching in the Age of Generative AI: Supporting GenAI-Mindful Writing

This article was collaboratively written by Elise Wallace, Vermont State University English faculty member/Writing Coordinator and Jen Garrett-Ostermiller, Director of the CTLI.

Our focus is to support faculty in centering human agency (Watkins, 2025) in the learning process and in pedagogy. It isn’t necessary that you encourage the use of generative AI (genAI) in your courses; there are many valid critiques such as environmental impacts, data privacy, and cognitive effects. The goal is to provide information that will help you support students, design curriculum, and develop pedagogy that protects learning objectives and supports students.

GenAI is already part of many students’ writing processes. Even if you choose not to teach Ai use, understanding how it fits into student workflows can strengthen your course design and help you set clear, enforceable expectations. Academic policies now need explicit, detailed references to genAI—”don’t use it” isn’t sufficient explanation.

When crafting a policy for your course, it is most effective to consider all the ways that students could use it. By informing yourself of these uses, you can develop a strong policy that protects your students’ academic integrity and prioritizes your learning objectives.

We can’t teach everything. In general, it’s safe to say that to maintain integrity of learning, students should not use genAI for skills/processes/objectives that are the goal of an assignment/assessment/activity.

To determine what students should not use genAI for, ask:

  • What is the purpose of the assignment?
  • What learning objectives are being assessed?
  • What skills must students independently demonstrate?

Generally, whatever is “leftover” from learning objectives and assessment criteria are skills that students most likely already possess in their academic “toolbelt.” Consider if using genAI to support these skills maintains the integrity of student learning.

To determine what may be permissible, ask:

  • What steps of the assignment are not part of an assessed learning outcome?
  • What supporting skills do I assume students already have, and use?

If you want to discourage a specific type of genAI use, state it clearly in a more robust policy. Or you can integrate genAI use into your assignments for certain steps, tasks, or aspects. This may provide valuable opportunities for students to reflect on their genAI use and learn how it can be a helpful learning tool.  You can also use these questions to inspire ways to alter assignments and projects to be more genAI-resilient.ngths. We offer some ideas for you to consider and experiment with. Please reach out to us if you have additional suggestions to include in this section.

If you permit students to use genAI for one or more writing tasks, it can be helpful to engage provide them with guidance and guardrails. For instance, the way a student writes a genA prompt is written may affect whether that genAI use meets your permissibility expectations or not.

In-class activities where you and your students experiment together and then engage in metacognitive reflection can help students see the nuances of how to use genAI mindfully and ethically. We have compiled ideas (building on the suggestions developed by the Center for Faculty Excellence at Montana State University) for you to try in your classes.

Here is an example of a prompt you could tweak to help your students brainstorm a topic or define the scope of a paper:

Help me come up with a research topic and research question for my undergraduate [SUBJECT] course. Only ask me questions to help me explore and clarify my own thinking. Only ask one question at a time. Act like an ethical tutor who is helping me gain skills in beginning a research project. I am aware that the scope should not be too broad nor too narrow. I will be using academic sources from my university’s library to explore my topic and question to eventually come up with a thesis statement.

And here are some ways to help students consider the utility of the genAI output:

  • How did use of genAI stretch or limit your thinking?
  • Which ideas did you keep? Which did you reject?
  • Were there any times you felt that the genAI bot overstepped the parameters of the prompt?

Here is an example of a prompt you could tweak to help your students refine a thesis statement:

I’ve drafted a thesis for a paper in my undergraduate [SUBJECT] course. Here it is: [THESIS STATEMENT]. How could I make it more precise, arguable, or complex?

And here are some ways to help students consider the utility of the genAI output:

  • How did use of genAI stretch or limit your thinking?
  • What aspects of the genAI bot’s revision did you accept or reject? Why?

Here is an example of a prompt you could tweak to help your students read scholarly sources with greater attention to detail:

CAUTION: If you encourage students to upload scholarly work, ensure that it is already publicly available (such as from an open-source journal or with a CC-BY license). It is not appropriate to upload copyrighted materials to a chatbot without author permission.

I’m writing a paper for an undergraduate course that requires me to use scholarly sources. I’m finding it difficult to understand the attached academic paper. Summarize the methods of the research in language a 9th grader would understand. Additionally, summarize the results and particularly how a reader would know how reliable and valid the results are.

And here are some ways to help students consider the utility of the genAI output:

  • How can you use the genAI summaries to approach reading the article?
  • (After completing your own read of the article.) How accurate were the genAI bot’s summaries and analysis? How do you know?

Here is an example of a prompt you could tweak to help your students read scholarly sources with greater attention to detail:

CAUTION: Some students may have made a personal choice to not use genAI bots and/or may be cautious about uploading their intellectual property to a bot. It is important to offer students alternatives to genAI bots (e.g., VTSU Academic Support/Tutoring) and be supportive of their choices related to bot usage.

I’m writing a [STYLE] paper for an undergraduate course. Please review my [SECTION] and provide suggestions for improving the flow and organization, paying attention to [HAVE STUDENTS CHOOSE ONE OR MORE QUESTION]:

Areas of FocusExample Revising Prompts:
StyleIs the style appropriate for X audience? Are words being overused? Is the voice passive?
OrganizationAre the paragraphs organized logically? Is each paragraph intentional and supportive of the central argument?
ClarityAre the topic sentences clear and appropriate? Are there effective transitions between sub-topics and paragraphs?
ArgumentIs my thesis supported by evidence? Are counterpoints sufficiently addressed?

Here is an example of a prompt you could tweak to help your students use genAI for citations:

CAUTION: If you encourage students to upload scholarly work, ensure that it is already publicly available (such as from an open-source journal or with a CC-BY license). It is not appropriate to upload copyrighted materials to a chatbot without author permission.

Create a proper reference list citation, using the [NUMBER] edition of the [APA, MLA, CHICAGO, ETC.] style guide, for this source [INCLUDE LINK OR ATTACH SOURCE].

And here are some ways to help students consider the utility of the genAI output:

  • How accurate was the genAI bot’s citation compared with the rules of the style guide as published by the library?
  • If you’ve used another citation generator, how would you rate the genAI bot’s output compared with your traditional generator?

Center for Faculty Excellence, Montana State University. (n.d.). Incorporating generative AI into the writing process for students. https://www.montana.edu/facultyexcellence/teaching-advising/courseclassdesign/genai/writing.html

Puxon, P., Brook, J., & Prevatt-Goldstein, A. (2024). The use of generative AI tools in the reading-into-writing process: Gains, losses and recommendations. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (32). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi32.1464

Warner, J. (2025, October 25). Teach writing, not document production. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/just-visiting/2025/10/29/writing-classes-are-about-writing-not-ai-aided-production

Watkins, M. (2025, December 30). What agency means in the era of automation. Rhetorica. https://marcwatkins.substack.com/p/what-agency-means-in-the-era-of-automation


Explore related pages on the topic of Generative AI.