Leveraging AI tools in university writing instruction: enhancing student success while upholding academic integrity
Open accessAbstract
The emergence of AI-powered Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini, presents both opportunities and challenges for higher education, particularly regarding academic integrity in writing instruction. This exploratory study examines a novel pedagogical approach that integrates LLMs as required feedback tools in a university-level psychology writing assignment. The exclusive online approach emphasizes improvement through revision, requiring students to obtain AI-generated feedback on ungraded initial drafts based on an instructor-provided rubric, with final assessment focused on the quality of subsequent revisions. Analysis of survey data from 39 undergraduate students, incorporating both quantitative measures and qualitative responses, revealed several key findings. Students consistently reported high utility of LLM feedback, particularly valuing its specificity and actionable guidance. The structured integration of AI feedback appeared to foster learner independence while addressing ethical concerns, with students clearly distinguishing between using AI for feedback versus content generation. Moreover, the assignment’s emphasis on iterative improvement over initial performance was perceived to reduce academic integrity pressures. These preliminary findings suggest that thoughtfully structured LLM integration can enhance the writing process while maintaining academic rigor, offering promising directions for pedagogical innovation in technology-enhanced learning environments. Implications for writing instruction and future research in higher education are discussed.
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?
Positioning AI as feedback partner rather than ghostwriter, with structured requirements to critique and adapt AI-generated suggestions, enhances metacognitive engagement and critical evaluation capacities.
“Positioning AI as feedback partner rather than ghostwriter, with structured requirements to critique and adapt AI-generated suggestions, enhances metacognitive engagement and critical evaluation capacities (Akiba and Garte, 2024; Khojasteh et al., 2025; Oates and Johnson, 2025; Song and Song, 2023).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Akiba and Garte, 2024
The Assignment Structure and Procedure section requires students to revise drafts using AI feedback and explain why they accepted or rejected suggestions. The Discussion reports active engagement beyond surface edits and describes AI as a writing partner rather than a shortcut. The study does not establish that this approach enhances metacognitive engagement or critical evaluation capacities as distinct outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Human-AI collaboration patterns in AI-assisted academic writing
Nguyen, A., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Huang, X. (2024) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2024.2323593 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Elkhatat, A. M., Elsaid, K., & Almeer, S. (2023) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-023-00140-5 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies
Strobl, C., Ailhaud, E., Benetos, K., Devitt, A., Kruse, O., Proske, A., & Rapp, C. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.005 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Role of AI in Blended Learning: A Systematic Literature Review
Park, Y., & Doo, M. Y. (2024) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v25i1.7566 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Akiba, D., & Fraboni, M. C. (2023). AI-Supported Academic Advising: Ex- ploring ChatGPT's Current State and Future Potential toward Student Empowerment. Education Sciences, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educ- sci13090885 · DOI
- Anders, B. A. (2023). Is using ChatGPT cheating, plagiarism, both, neither, or forward thinking? Patterns, 4(3), 100694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pat- ter.2023.100694 · DOI
- Dien, J. (2023). Editorial: Generative artificial intelligence as a plagiarism prob- lem. Biological Psychology, 181, 108621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsy- cho.2023.108621 · DOI
- Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Al- bashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). Opinion Paper: "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · DOI · Paper page
- Martinez-Maldonado, R., Kay, J., Buckingham Shum, S., & Yacef, K. (2019). Collocated Collaboration Analytics: Principles and Dilemmas for Mining Multimodal Interaction Data. Human-Computer Interaction, 34(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1338956 · DOI
- Peng, L., & Zhao, B. (2024). Navigating the ethical landscape behind ChatGPT. Big Data & Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241237488 · DOI
- Wang, C., Aguilar, 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/educ- sci14090976 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., & Fute, A. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70109 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Abdellatif, M. S., Alshehri, M. A., Lamouchi, A., Rahmath, M., & Nemt-allah, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1809174
From Tool to Method: Developing AI Literacy in an Upper-Level History Course
Dumančić, M., & Stickle, T. (2026) · Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology · doi:10.14434/jotlt.v14i1.41669
- Authors
- Akiba, D., & Garte, R.
- Affiliations
- Queens College, CUNY (US)
- Borough of Manhattan Community College (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Interactive Learning Research
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 467-480
- ISSN
- 1093-023X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4410595242
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 5.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Interactive Learning Research (publishedVersion)
- CUNY Academic Works (City University of New York) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- large language models, AI-generated feedback, academic integrity, university writing instruction, draft revision, learner autonomy, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, technology-enhanced learning
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