I work with students on academic writing, and I’m interested in how others are incorporating AI tools into writing support. The question that comes up most often in my consultations is whether a tool can help a student who understands the assignment but cannot yet turn their notes into an argument.
My answer depends on where the student is in the writing process. If they have not settled on a research question, asking for a complete draft rarely addresses the problem. I’ve found it more useful to start with the assignment instructions, the student’s notes, and the evidence they have actually read.
For example, a student writing about AI policies in universities might have sources on academic integrity, assessment design, and access to learning support. Those sources are related, but they do not automatically form one essay. I would ask the student what they want to argue and which source might complicate that position. We might then use a writing assistant to generate a few possible outlines and discuss which one the available evidence can support.
That is usually what I mean when I say an Essay bot can be useful in a consultation: it can give the student something specific to evaluate. The student still has to decide whether the proposed thesis statement answers the prompt, whether each section advances the argument, and whether a counterargument has been treated fairly.
I also see value in targeted feedback on a draft. A broad request to “make this essay better” tends to produce polished prose without telling the student much about the underlying issue. A narrower question is more productive: Where does this paragraph’s topic sentence promise something the evidence does not deliver? Or: Which step in this argument would a skeptical reader question?
Even then, I prefer to discuss the feedback before the student changes the paragraph. A language model may correctly identify a gap but suggest a revision that alters the student’s meaning. Comparing the original paragraph with the suggestion helps the student understand the choice they are making. It turns revision into a writing exercise rather than a series of accepted edits.
Source checking is the part of this workflow I would never leave to automated feedback. If a tool proposes a study or inserts a citation, the student needs to find the source, read the relevant section, and confirm that it supports the claim. The same applies to reference formatting. A plausible citation is not evidence that the source exists or has been represented accurately.
Course rules matter too. In some classes, brainstorming with AI is permitted while generated prose is restricted or requires disclosure. I advise students to check the assignment instructions and ask their instructor when the boundary is unclear. That conversation is easier when the student can describe exactly how they used the tool.
I’m curious how other educators and writing consultants handle this in practice. When a student brings AI feedback or a generated outline to a session, what helps you turn it into a discussion about their own writing decisions?