AI use in writing - the process is more important than the output

I came across a post in the Facebook group “AI for Teachers” today that is worthy of some discussion. The post shared an article (linked below) that goes into great detail about citation requirements in academic writing. I know, this doesn’t sound super exciting but stay with me here.

This article by Joseph M. Moxley contains lots of background and an analysis of MLA and APA citation rules, which Joe clearly feels are not adequate.? What I want to focus on is his breakdown of the various use cases for how generative AI may be incorporated into the writing process.

The following bullet points are directly copied from Joe’s article:

• Thought Partner: AI acts as a reflective partner during the prewriting and brainstorming stages, helping writers think critically about their ideas and the direction they want to take.
• Research Assistant: AI tools help writers identify key research, synthesize multiple sources, and explore new methods to enrich their writing.
• Composing Assistant: AI supports the drafting process by offering alternative approaches, helping writers structure their arguments, and assisting with rhetorical reasoning.
• Designer: AI enhances the visual appeal of documents, helping writers create scannable, visually engaging content.
• Editor: AI tools help writers refine their prose, ensuring stylistic consistency, grammatical correctness, and overall coherence.
• Citation Assistant: AI tools streamline citation management, ensuring proper formatting and organization of sources.
• Publishing Assistant: AI supports the final steps of publication, helping writers prepare content for different platforms and formats.

?Obviously, we don’t all go through each of these stages distinctly when we are writing. It depends on what we are creating and who the target audience is, but in the academic setting, I totally get Joe’s point that asking a student to cite any phrase from AI or include any prompt they used may be completely impractical and provide little insight into how a student used AI or how AI influenced their writing.

Joe describes these citations as “metaprocess footnotes”. What I love is that it asks us to think about our writing process.

Often, particularly in an education setting, the process is more important than the output.

Maybe a simpler version of this is appropriate in some situations. Instead of 7 categories or processes I’ve simplified it down to just 3:

• Pre-writing: research, brainstorming, ideation
• Writing: composing and iterating
• Finalizing: editing, citing and publishing

If we can get students to footnote how they are using AI in each of these 3 phases or Joe’s full 7 categories, I think we can get a better understanding of a student’s writing process and how they are using generative AI. I emphasize here, that I am a proponent of encouraging students to use AI and to become comfortable with enhancing their writing with the tools and technology available. And yes, I encourrage ethical use and proper citation when using AI. I did not use AI to help write this post.

https://writingcommons.org/section/citation/how-to-cite-sources-in-academic-and-professional-writing/how-to-cite-generative-ai-to-ensure-academic-integrity

?

?

?