Integrating Generative AI Into Academic Writing Classrooms: Practical Pedagogical Issues
Open accessAbstract
In this teaching practice-oriented article, we discuss fostering students’ future-oriented skills by integrating generative AI (GAI) tools, such as ChatGPT and Gemini, into EFL academic writing classrooms. We begin with an overview of the larger project underpinning this discussion, funded by a public grant to explore the effective and ethical integration of GAI into academic writing education. Next, drawing on key academic literature on classroom GAI use, we present two activities that demonstrate how it can be integrated into the writing classroom. Developed for inclusion in a writing textbook that incorporates GAI, these activities are: (1) explicitly teaching students to interact effectively with GAI tools and (2) a creative writing task that engages students with GAI ethics. In addition, we address practical issues related to incorporating GAI into a reflective process-writing workflow and offer recommendations for readers to integrate these insights into their own practice. 本論文は、EFLアカデミック・ライティングの授業において、ChatGPTやGeminiなどの生成AI(GAI)ツールを活用し、学生の未来志向のスキルを育成するための実践的なアプローチを考察する。まず、GAIをアカデミック・ライティング教育に効果的かつ倫理的に取り入れることを目的とした公的助成によるプロジェクトの概要を紹介する。次に、GAIの教育的活用に関する先行研究を踏まえ、GAIを取り入れたライティング教材に含まれるふたつのアクティビティを提示する。ひとつは、学生がGAIツールと効果的にやり取りをするスキルの明示的指導であり、もうひとつは、学生にGAIの倫理的側面を考えさせる創造的ライティング課題である。さらに、GAIをプロセス・ライティング型の授業に取り入れる際の実践的課題に触れ、読者がこれらの知見を自身の授業に応用するための提案を行う。
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Students use AI as a walking tutor providing instant feedback on linguistic accuracy and structural coherence, particularly during brainstorming and drafting.
“Students use AI as a “walking tutor” providing instant feedback on linguistic accuracy and structural coherence, particularly during brainstorming and drafting (Talandis and Muller, 2025; Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Talandis and Muller, 2025
Activity 2 describes students using GAI to create an initial draft and then seek grammar, vocabulary, and revision feedback. Class 3 describes GAI feedback on drafts, including suggestions for overall clarity. The paper does not describe GAI as a “walking tutor” or establish that feedback was instant or focused on structural coherence; its Final Thoughts suggest brainstorming as a possible future extension rather than a use demonstrated in the activities. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExplicit instruction in prompt engineering and critical AI literacy positions AI as a legitimate skill development object rather than taboo.
“Explicit instruction in prompt engineering and critical AI literacy positions AI as legitimate skill development object rather than taboo (Talandis and Muller, 2025; Wang, 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Talandis and Muller, 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- Abasi, A. R., & Graves, B. (2008). Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversations with international graduate students and disciplinary professors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.010 · DOI
- Alm, A., & Ohashi, L. (2024). A worldwide study on language educators' initial response to ChatGPT. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl. v6n1.1141 · DOI
- Altun, M. (2023). The ongoing debate over teacher-centered education and student-centered education. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 10(1), 106-110.
- Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745 · DOI · Paper page
- Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2018). Disruptive innovation: An intellectual history and directions for future research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1051-1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12349 · DOI · Paper page
- Ekin, S. (2023). Prompt engineering for ChatGPT: A quick guide to techniques, tips, and best practices. Texas A&M University. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22683919.v2 · DOI
- Federiakin, D., Molerov, D., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., & Maur, A. (2024). Prompt engineering as a new 21st century skill. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1366434. https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2024.1366434 · DOI
- Foster, J., & Deardorff, D. (2017). Open Science Framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(2), 203-206. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017. · DOI · Paper page
- Gosden, H. (1995). Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructionist perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 37-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889- 4906(94)00022-6 · DOI
- Ivanič, R. (1997). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll. · DOI
- Japan Association for Language Teaching. (2024). JALT2024 conference handbook. Japan Association for Language Teaching. https://jalt.org/conference/jalt2024
- Karamolegkou, A., Li, J., Zhou, L., & Søgaard, A. (2023). Copyright violations and large language models. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 7403-7412. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.13771 · DOI
- Kim, J. (2009). Dewey's Aesthetics and Today's Moral Education. Education and Culture 25(2), 62-75. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/eac.0.0040 · DOI
- Kubanyiova, M. (2008). Rethinking research ethics in contemporary applied linguistics: The tension between macroethical and microethical perspectives in situated research. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 503-518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00784.x · DOI
- McCarthy, P. M., Al-Harthy, A., Buck, R. H., Ahmed, K., Duran, N. D., Thomas, A. M., Kaddoura, N. W., & Graesser, A. C. (2021). Introducing Auto-Peer: A computational tool designed to provide automated feedback. Asian ESP Journal, 17, 9-43.
- Mhlanga, D. (2023). Open AI in education: The responsible and ethical use of ChatGPT towards lifelong learning. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4354422 · DOI · Paper page
- Morris, S., & Sarapin, S. (2020). Mobile phones in the classroom: Policies and potential pedagogy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 12(3), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2020-12-1-5 · DOI
- Murphey, T. (1996). Near peer role models. Teachers Talking to Teachers: JALT Teacher Education SIG Newsletter, 4(3), 21-22.
- Najjar, J., & McCarthy, P. (2024). AI and the digital writing process. In S. Kersten & C. Ludwig (Eds.), Born-Digital Texts in the English Language Classroom (pp. 153-172). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800414815-011 · DOI
- Nazari, M., & Saadi, G. (2024). Developing effective prompts to improve communication with ChatGPT: A formula for higher education stakeholders. Discover Education, 3(45). https://doi. org/10.1007/s44217-024-00122-w · DOI
- Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141 · DOI
- Ray, P. P. (2023). Impact of GAI: A comprehensive review of ChatGPT. Internet of Things and Cyber- Physical Systems, 3, 121-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Smith, C. (2013). Creative writing as an important tool in second language acquisition and practice. The Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, 2(5), 12-18.
- UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535 · DOI · Paper page
- Talandis, J. Jr., Muller, T., & McCarthy, P. (2025). Tailoring Auto-Peer for Japanese EFL writing: Enhancing ethical and effective AI integration. The Journal of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Toyama, 6, 1-16. https://toyama.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/2001070
- Walter, Y. (2024). Embracing the future of AI in the classroom: The relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(15). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3 · DOI · Paper page
- Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of GAI for L2 academic writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 101071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071 · DOI
- Werhane, P. H. (2002). Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1-2), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015737431300 · DOI
- White, J., Fu, Q., Hays, S., Sandborn, M., Olea, C., Gilbert, H., Elnashar, A., Spencer-Smith, J., & Schmidt, D. C. (2023). A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with ChatGPT. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.11382 · arXiv
- Young, J. J., & Annisette, M. (2009). Cultivating imagination: Ethics, education and literature. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(1), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2007.03.003 · DOI
- Zhao, Y. (2014). L2 creative writers' identities: Their cognitive writing processes and sense of empowerment. New Writing, 11(3), 452-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2014.956124 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Abdellatif, M. S., Alshehri, M. A., Lamouchi, A., Rahmath, M., & Nemt-allah, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1809174
- Authors
- Talandis, Jr., & Muller, T.
- Affiliations
- Toyama University
- Waseda University (JP)
- ORCID
- Muller, Theron
- Venue
- JALT Postconference Publication
- Published
- 2025-08-31
- Volume
- 2024
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-31
- OpenAlex
- W4413456077
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- generative AI in education, academic writing instruction, EFL writing, ChatGPT, Gemini, AI ethics education, process writing, creative writing tasks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review