‘The process of writing forces the writer to be present’

For centuries, the written word has been the core medium through which university students convey their critical thinking skills. In the age of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), however, students are outsourcing their writing to large language models (LLMs) at an alarming rate, bypassing this process critical for the development of original ideas. The result is student writing that lacks perspective, creativity and intuition.

So, if AI is here to stay, rendering written tasks an ineffective way to assess critical thinking, why shouldn’t we do away with them? 

The case for celebrating ‘pure’ writing

Many students find writing a daunting task. But the process of writing without AI assistance – you could call it “pure” writing – is arguably more important than ever in higher education. As US historian David McCullough put it: “Writing is thinking. To write well is to think clearly. That’s why it’s so hard.”

• Advice for protecting writing time and motivation
• Colleges, not the College Board, determine university-level writing
• Be the conductor of your own GenAI orchestra for academic writing

What we tell our own students is that you do not have to be good at writing straight away (this takes years of experience); you just need to be disciplined at practising it.

The process of writing forces the writer to be present, which is uncomfortable; writing is one of the most cognitively taxing activities. It exercises all aspects of working memory – the facility to hold information short term to complete tasks – but our brain loves it, nevertheless.

Writing is an indispensable skill in the science workforce. In research, well-written papers and grant proposals translate to greater research impact. Academic and research literacy is an attribute valued in the environmental industry as well. For example, environmental science professionals see the ability to write reports and emails as foundational skills, ones that many recent graduates perform poorly. While AI can be used to assist in these tasks, the ability to synthesise research evidence and articulate an argument with confidence requires the practice of writing to clarify thinking.

Before we radically change the curriculum, let’s consider how we can reinforce the power of writing as a tool to support critical thinking. Here are insights – not all the answers – from our experience as environmental science lecturers.

Back to pen and paper (or stylus and iPad)

Note-taking by hand – with pen and paper or stylus and tablet – makes students less vulnerable to distraction and enables deeper processing than typing into a phone or laptop, or querying AI. The idea may seem archaic, but manually writing down thoughts is a method still widely used in science. For example, fieldwork records and observations, laboratory logbooks and even meeting notes are often written by hand. 

Educators can tap into this with assessments designed to include a raw element of writing. We integrate field logbooks into some of our environmental science assessments, where students must hand-record their observations about the field site, creating a living lab experience without AI interpretations.

Communal writing sessions

Creating a supportive writing environment through structured writing sessions, either virtual or in person, can be an effective way to increase motivation among students. Motivation grows with doing, and one of the biggest reasons people procrastinate on writing is a lack of consistent practice. 

To encourage the writing process, set up a space and time for students to work in short bursts interspersed with breaks for discussion. This activity is similar to Shut up & Write sessions, which have been used for more than a decade to build a culture of deliberate writers within academia. 

Peer revision

Demonstrate to students that writing is an iterative process. Polished, thoughtful writing is the finish line, and to get there requires practice and sitting in the discomfort of one’s critical thought. 

We suggest facilitating peer review feedback among students on a piece of their own writing, with a written response to the reviewer, much like the peer review process in journals. Reviewing forces students to critically engage with their own work and the work of others. This process fosters self-awareness and continuous development as well as sharpening critical thinking.

Writing with intention, not autopilot

We liken the practice of writing to pilot training; the aircraft may have autopilot but skilled pilots do not have to rely on it. Would we put untrained individuals at the controls of a plane with only autopilot to guide them to their destination? Absolutely not. This same concept applies to students. They need to build their critical thinking skills around writing before they outsource these tasks to Copilot or ChatGPT. 

As HE professionals we can shape our students’ perspectives on AI use and help them navigate their university studies with and without GenAI tools. More importantly, we can remind students about the benefits of writing and truly owning one’s work. Writing is a critical skill that requires commitment and perseverance. If students lose the ability to write well, they will also lose the ability to think well and, more importantly, to think critically.  

Jackie Webb is a lecturer in environmental science and Christina Birnbaum is a senior lecturer in terrestrial ecology, both at the University of Southern Queensland.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.