Dialogue on the use of GenAI in academic writing

After completing her essay, a student uses GenAI to refine some awkward phrases and suggests strengthening the conclusion. GenAI unexpectedly recommends two new scholarly articles that perfectly match her topic. She carefully checks and incorporates these sources into her final draft without altering the GenAI’s provided summaries. Though she did substantial research herself, the essay’s final polish clearly benefits from GenAI input.

Struggling to genuinely reflect on his learning, a student feeds his original reflective notes and data from a survey into GenAI, asking for a critique from “the perspective of an insightful peer”. GenAI generates a reflective response that resonates with him deeply. He edits a few words to make it fit his own experience better and submits it, feeling more confident about his reflective skills than ever.

A student meticulously designs detailed prompts for GenAI to write each section of an essay, ensuring alignment with assessment criteria. Though GenAI generates the text, the student continuously revises the prompts and integrates subtle revisions into each paragraph to enhance coherence and consistency. He proudly notes, “It felt like managing a team rather than writing alone.”

Facing writer’s block, a student lets GenAI draft an outline, introduction, and tentative conclusion for her research paper. She transparently mentions this GenAI assistance in her reflection, emphasising her subsequent careful verification and moderate editing. The final product is strong and thoughtful, although substantial portions clearly originated from GenAI-generated insights.

A student heavily engages with GenAI during essay writing, continuously questioning GenAI about logic, counterarguments, and ways to clarify points. Inspired by GenAI’s insights, she enthusiastically applies these suggestions herself, significantly improving her initial ideas. While she credits GenAI for guiding her thinking, she feels personally responsible for the final arguments.

Having long struggled with dyslexia, a student decides to use GenAI to evaluate and suggest improvements for his draft thesis. The GenAI recommends numerous rephrasings, vocabulary enhancements, and minor structural adjustments. He selectively accepts these changes, but often without deeply assessing each one. Although the final thesis clearly benefits from the GenAI’s suggestions, it’s ambiguous how much the improved readability truly reflects his own development as a writer.

Tasked with critically evaluating complex sources, a student uses GenAI to identify subtle weaknesses and implicit assumptions. GenAI’s analysis strongly aligns with her own preliminary thoughts, prompting her to directly include some of its critiques verbatim in her final paper. She justifies this decision internally, as GenAI merely confirmed and clearly articulated what she already believed.

Overwhelmed by extensive reading materials, a student prompts GenAI to summarise dense articles focusing explicitly on theories central to his research. GenAI’s summaries brilliantly encapsulate essential points, allowing him to confidently build his arguments without reading the articles fully. He is convinced the approach is efficient and acceptable, though he acknowledges he might miss nuances from the original texts.

A student struggles to find an original angle for her project. GenAI suggests several innovative ideas, one of which deeply inspires her. She develops this concept extensively on her own, crafting a unique final product. Though the initial spark came entirely from GenAI, she feels complete ownership of the work.

For an art theory assignment, a student uses GenAI to interpret a complex piece of contemporary art. GenAI provides an interpretation that the student finds insightful yet very different from his own initial perspective. He combines both views, unsure how much credit belongs to GenAI’s perspective.

Faced with a confusing research landscape, a student asks GenAI to map out key themes and debates in her field. GenAI generates a clear thematic structure, significantly streamlining her research approach. She independently verifies and expands upon this structure, feeling that GenAI helped her avoid unnecessary detours.

A student submits his manuscript to GenAI for detailed editorial feedback. GenAI suggests extensive revisions, including reorganising sections and clarifying arguments. The student adopts many suggestions, significantly reshaping his original manuscript, but wonders whether he is now overly reliant on GenAI for structuring his thoughts.

In peer-reviewing another student’s work, one student uses GenAI to generate balanced critiques and constructive feedback. She reviews GenAI’s critiques, slightly modifies them, and submits the peer review. While the content feels genuinely helpful, she contemplates whether using GenAI diminishes her own critical thinking role.

A student asks GenAI to clarify the dense theoretical arguments presented by a well-known philosopher. GenAI provides simplified explanations which the student integrates directly into his own interpretation. Although he genuinely understands the theories better now, he worries if his reliance on GenAI oversimplifies the original texts.

Preparing for a lab report, a student employs GenAI to interpret complex experimental data and suggest explanations for unexpected outcomes. GenAI’s insights closely match her own preliminary analyses, and she directly incorporates these explanations into her report. She wonders whether this approach represents thorough scientific inquiry or a shortcut.

A student regularly discusses her dissertation ideas with GenAI, treating it as a brainstorming partner. GenAI generates numerous perspectives and questions, some of which deeply influence her theoretical framework. She fully develops and writes these ideas herself, yet is uncertain how to fairly represent GenAI’s contributions in her acknowledgments.