Content uploaded by Nathan Lindberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nathan Lindberg on Aug 24, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
2024 Report on AI Writing Tools’ Impacts on Writing Centers
Nathan Lindberg and Amanda Domingues
Cornell University
Introduction
Less than two years ago, artificial intelligence (AI) was mostly in science fiction movies and AI
tools did not write students’ essays for them. Now these tools have so rapidly become
commonplace that we haven’t had time to agree on what to call them. It seems like every
journal article uses a different combination of the words AI, generative AI (e.g., GenAI, GAI),
and/or large language models (LLM) to describe software, tools, programs, or systems for
writing. We too have had difficulty determining a nomenclature. Last year, we used the term GAI
tools, but it proved too general (Lindberg et al., 2023). This year, we consulted an expert—
ChatGPT—which told us AI writing tools is currently most widely used (confirmed by a Google
search), so we’ve adopted the term in this report.
However, many other questions have yet to be answered, including how AI writing tools will
change the writing process; how they will affect the writing center; and how do we work with
their nefarious undertones (e.g., embedded racism, loss of language diversity). And, ultimately,
are they truly revolutionary or over-hyped gimmicks?
In this relentlessly AI developing environment, it is helpful to know what other writing center
administrators and related parties (e.g., tutors/consultants, faculty) are thinking, planning, and
developing. Unfortunately, the technology is so new that there is not much research on the
subject in writing center studies. In fact, when this report was written, only one paper on AI
writing tools (Lester, 2024) had been published in the main four journals
1
. This report is meant
to help fill that gap.
This is our second report; the first we released last year and can be found on Nathan’s
Researchgate page or Amanda’s Academia.edu page. Both reports are based on a survey sent
out on listservs to writing center administrators. This report was done as expeditiously as our
summer schedules would allow, so writing centers could consider the results when planning for
the upcoming fall semester.
Many of the 2024 survey questions are the same as the 2023 survey, giving us a chance to
compare the results and see how opinions and policies might be shifting, but new questions
were added when deemed useful. For your convenience, and because we anticipate some
readers will have a chatbot summarize our report, we want to present our main findings early
and succinctly:
Key Takeaways
● The general conversation appears to be moving away from the negative aspects of AI
writing tools towards possibilities of using them to address problems, some of which are
explicated in the literature review below.
1
i.e., The Peer Review; Praxis: A Writing Center Journal; The Writing Center Journal; WLN: A Journal of
Writing Center Scholarship
2
● Sentiments toward AI writing tools appear to be shifting from negative to pragmatic, and
administrators and related parties are using the tools more for their own writing and
pedagogical tasks.
● Institutional support for using AI writing tools appears to be focused on faculty and
administrators not students. Perhaps students don’t need such support. They might be
even more adept at using AI writing tools than faculty and administrators.
● More policies for using AI writing tools have been developed, but they are mostly on a
local level, not university-wide.
● Overall, the fear that AI writing tools will replace tutoring has generally not been justified,
particularly for undergraduate-focused services, which are more likely to have
mandatory visits. The decreases in demand for writing centers that have occurred are
more likely to have been for graduate-focused services, where clients turn to AI writing
tools for polishing, such as adjusting second language written accents.
● Most study participants felt that AI writing tools will change the way writing centers work
with clients, though not immensely.
● Most study participants felt that AI writing tools will change how tutors
2
are trained. Many
feel tutors will need to be AI literate and able to advise on ethics and policies, even
acting as AI police to guard against plagiarism and cheating.
Just a note, we will be using our data, along with data from another study, to write an article or a
book chapter. If you have any suggestions about where we might publish or if you have any
questions or suggestions about this report, please contact Nathan (nwl26@cornell.edu) and
Amanda (aad247@cornell.edu).
Relevant Literature
When we wrote our report last year, there was a lack of research on AI writing tools, so we cited
what was available, including a pre-published study, an exploratory study, and research from
unrelated fields, such as experimental ophthalmology. There were, however, many opinion
pieces, most of which were warnings that AI writing tools can be harmful, inaccurate, and/or
used unethically.
This year, opinions appear to be shifting. There are still essays cautioning about using AI, but
fewer suggest students will use AI writing tools to write papers for them. Instead, some scholars
have honed in on specific features that have been negatively affected. Meyer (2023), for
example, discussed how a student’s voice can be lost in AI-generated texts. However, some
scholars have pointed out that AI writing tools’ shortcomings can be learning opportunities. In
Wang’s (2024) study, six first-year students were concerned with losing their voice. This
concern led to conversation about what voice entails and how it can be reinserted, elevating the
conversation to a metacognitive level and eventually leading to higher quality writing.
2
In this report, we use the term tutor instead of consultant. We apologize if this term inaccurately
describes some writing center staff, but we felt tutor is more widely used and thus recognizable to a wider
audience.
3
In another cautionary piece, Werse (2023) pointed out that the writing process develops critical
thinking, and when AI replaces part of that process, there can be a loss of critical thinking. But,
similar to Wang, Matas (2023) saw the problem as an opportunity, suggesting that students can
be asked to scrutinize AI-generated texts, which can lead to increased critical thinking skills.
Lester (2024) argued that large language models (LLMs) draw mostly from text written by white
males, and thus have an inherent bias. But Lester also saw learning opportunities:
However, if there is a potential advantage to GenAI’s proficiency and adherence to white
mainstream American English (and its deleterious effect on voice and language), it’s that
GenAI has made material and visible that otherwise slippery linguist slope toward white
patriarchy. This problem creates an opportunity to implement more innovative and
radical practices to address systemic injustice, building off current practices regarding
technology literacy and encouraging ownership. (p. 23)
As for pedagogy, many teachers are embracing AI writing tools. The Internet is filled with AI-
focused pedagogical material (e.g., Gardner, n.d.). One notable example is the WAC
Clearinghouse’s 2023 collection, Teaching with Text Generation Technologies, which contains
lesson plans for a variety of purposes, including identifying biases in AI text (Jimenez, 2023),
raising ethical questions (Watkins, 2023), and using AI writing tools as an integral part of
composing (McKee, 2023).
As shown in this report, writing center administrators and related parties are also thinking about
AI writing tools, specifically, how they will change tutor training and alter the relationships writing
centers have with their clients. Opinions on the extent of these effects vary drastically, ranging
from not at all to “100%—everything has to change.”
At this stage, we need research to help us determine if we should react to AI writing tools and, if
so, what options we have. This study is meant to help address these needs by presenting data
from a spring 2024 survey of writing center administrators and interested parties. The
information presented shows an array of opinions as well as suggestions for the way forward.
Methods
Data for this study were gathered using an IRB-approved survey, following the same methods
as our 2023 report. The survey was sent out in May 2024 on several writing center professional
listservs, posted on a writing center administrators Facebook group, and disseminated to
Regional Writing Centers Association members in the United States.
We obtained 99 responses from institutions of higher education in 25 different U.S. states and
two in Canada. Eighteen responses were deleted because either no input was given or only one
or two questions were answered. The other 81 responses were complete.
The participants were affiliated with 74 different institutions, along with two others that were
anonymized. We received multiple responses from five institutions but decided to keep them all
as they reflect different perspectives from individuals.
4
Survey participants primarily identified as writing center administrators but tutors, interested
parties, and staff were also involved (Table 1). Qualtrics Crosstabs IQ was used to compare
answers from the two largest populations (i.e., administrators vs. consultants/tutors), and the
answers were similar, not varying by more than 10%.
Table 1
Survey Participants’ Role in Their Writing Center
Role in Writing Center
Number
Percentage
Administrators
55
68%
Consultants or Tutors
16
20%
Interested Parties
3
3%
Staff
7
9%
Total
81
100%
Participants were asked to identify the clients of the writing centers they were affiliated with.
Table 2 below shows that most writing centers primarily served undergraduate students and, in
second place, graduate students and professionals.
Table 2
Survey Participants’ Primary Clients
Primary Clients
Number
Percentage
Undergraduate Students
58
72%
Graduate and Professional
Students
19
19%
Other
4
5%
Total
81
100%
Table 3 shows non-primary clients, the majority who were graduate or professional students.
5
Table 3
Survey Participants’ Non-Primary Clients*
Primary Clients
Number
Undergraduate Students
14
Graduate and Professional
Students
43
Postdocs
14
Faculty
20
None
15
Other
11
Total
117
* Respondents could choose as many as applied
Results
In this Results section, some figures show both 2023 and 2024 survey results if both were
available. Otherwise, figures represent 2024 data only.
Participants’ Perceptions and Experiences with AI Writing Tools
Participants were asked how they felt about the impacts of AI writing tools. Of the 81 responses,
more were negative than positive (41%), but a substantial number were neutral (33%). Compare
these results to the 2023 survey when less were neutral (27%) and more had negative feelings
(54%), indicating that perhaps sentiment is shifting (Figure 1),.
Figure 1
Generally, How Do You Feel About the Impact of GAI Tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini,
Claude) on Writing Centers?
0
(0%)
3
(5%)
9
(14%)
18
(27%)
26
(39%)
10
(15%)
0
(0%)
6
(7%)
15
(19%)
27
(33%)
20
(25%)
13
(16%)
No impact Very positive A little
positive Neutral A little
negative Very
negative
2023
2024
6
Fifty-seven participants commented on their feelings, which can be divided into three main
categories: (a) negative, (b) positive, and (c) ambivalent.
Seventeen (30%) of the respondents gave negative-only comments. Three of them felt the
technology was faulty, such as that it was only focused on lower-level concerns or that it was
restricted to working with existing ideas. Four worried that there may be a tendency for
administration and/or students to replace writing centers with cheaper and more convenient AI
writing tools. Four believed that reliance on AI writing tools negatively impacted students’ writing
skills and critical thinking.
For the 16 (31%) who saw both negative and positive effects, six worried that a reliance on AI
writing tools could impact students’ critical thinking and writing processes, but four of them
accepted that these tools are now part of writing and we need to work with them.
For the 13 participants (25%) who were positive-only about AI writing tools, three felt that writing
centers have the chance to be at the forefront of using AI tools, one stating, “Many writing
centers have long been poised to answer these moments because of our insider/outsider
positionality within institutions. Moreover, we are already equipped for agility as we must
collaborate with the body that we are working with.”
Among all the comments, only four participants felt that AI writing tools are not revolutionary but
instead just one more of the many writing tools available. Three others felt it was too early to
tell. The rest (93%; n=53) felt AI writing tools are substantially changing writing centers. One
claimed, “I think tutors need to understand AI is here to stay and we need to learn to adapt to
pull students into the process of writing.”
Participants were also asked if they personally use AI writing tools. The vast majority (76%;
n=62) use them at least a little, and 11% of those (n=9) use them a lot. Compare this to the
2023 results where only 66% (n=44) used them at least a little and 34% (n=23) did not use them
at all (Figure 2). This may indicate that more administrators and related parties are adopting
such tools.
7
Figure 2
Do You Personally Use GAI Tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude)?
Participants were asked follow-up questions, including why they used or didn’t use AI writing
tools. Ten stated that they didn’t need to or saw no use for them, including one who wrote,
“Because it’s stupid.” Four others felt such tools are unethical, one stating that they dull writing
abilities. Two others just hadn’t had time.
The 62 participants who used AI writing tools were asked which one they used. Thirty-nine
percent (n=24) reported ChatGPT while 40% (n=25) used ChatGPT along with some other
tool(s) (e.g., Gemini, Claude, Copilot). Only 6% (n=4) mentioned other tools and not ChatGPT.
When asked what they used the tools for, 18% (n=11) mentioned experimenting with them,
sometimes to be informed because students were using them. Fifty percent (n=31) were using
them as writing tools, including for brainstorming, writing low-stakes texts (e.g., emails),
choosing synonyms, outlining, and rephrasing. Eight of these were using them for pedagogical
purposes, such as checking to see if writing prompts were effective, developing activities, and
writing course syllabi. One administrator wrote, “I use it for lots of things: course planning,
assignment creation, workshop content, anything I think it might be useful for.”
Institutions’ Approach to AI Writing Tools
Generally, more policies have been developed. In 2023, fewer than half (45%; n=31) of
participants reported that their institutions had policies. This year 61% (n=50) did (Figure 3).
However, policies remain primarily local (e.g., by individual programs, by individual professors).
This year, only 23% (n=19) were university-wide.
23
(34%)
32
(48%)
8
(12%)4
(6%)
19
(23%%)
36
(44%)
17
(21%)
9
(11%)
No Yes, a little Yes, sometomes Yes, a lot
2023
2024
8
Figure 3
Does the Institution You Are Affiliated with Have Any Policy/Policies About Using AI Chatbots?
When asked if institutions provided support for using AI writing tools, when compared to those in
last year’s report, the results are puzzling: seven fewer participants reported support in 2024
than 2023 (Figure 4). Perhaps less support is being offered? Or perhaps different people
participated in the 2024 poll and had different institutional experience—a factor that should be
considered in all statistics in this survey.
Figure 4
At the Institution That You Are Affiliated with, Is There Support (E.G., Workshops, Handouts,
Lists Of Resources) for Using GAI Tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude)?
31 (38%)
19 (23%)
10 (12%)
6 (7%)
11 (14%)
4 (5%)
24 (35%)
7 (10%)
13 (19%)
1 (1%)
11 (16%)
12 (18%)
Yes, parts (e.g., programs, individual
professors)-not university-wide
Yes, university-wide
No
Not sure
Not wide but a university-wide policy
is/policies are being developed
Other
2023
2024
8
(12%)
11
(16%)
42
(63%)
6
(9%)
18
(22%)18
(27%)
35
(52%
10
(15%)
No No, but support is
being developed Yes I'm not sure
2023
2024
9
Forty-five participants elaborated on their answers. Thirty-two reported a specific entity was
working with AI writing tools, such as the library or some type of faculty development office.
Twelve reported that their writing center was offering support (e.g., workshops) and four more
were offering support in collaboration with another entity.
Support was focused on faculty, not students. Thirty-one answers either stated as such or
named faculty-focused entities such as Teaching and Learning Department, or Center for
Faculty Excellence. Only six mentioned working with students, and one reported that at their
student-focused event, “there was extremely low attendance.” Perhaps students are using GAI
writing tools and don’t need help. Perhaps they are even more advanced than their faculty.
Clients Using AI Writing Tools
Participants were asked if their clients were using AI writing tools. Only 1% (n=8) indicated that
they were not, 74% (n=59) thought they were, and 16% (n=13) were not sure.
When asked what clients were using AI writing tools for, no single answer was dominant (Figure
5). By a narrow margin, the most popular answer was “writing content for high-stakes texts”
(e.g., major class assignments, job applications, research articles, grant proposals) (16%;
n=45), followed by “writing content for low-stakes texts” (e.g., emails, minor class assignments)
(15%; n=44) and “ideas” (e.g., brainstorming topics, outlining, draft text), (15%; n=44).
Figure 5
What Do You Think Clients Are Using Them for? (Choose as Many as Apply.)
Note: Parentheticals of the choices not discussed above are as follows:
“proofreading” (e.g., checking for mistakes),
45
(16%)44
(15%)44
(15%)43
(15%)40
(14%)35
(12%)30
(10%)
5
(2%)1
(0%)
High-stakes texts Low-stakes texts Proofreading Tone or style
10
“Second language” (e.g., non-native phrasing/vocabulary, non-native syntax)
“tone or style” (e.g., formal/informal, academic/general audience),
“ideas” (e.g., brainstorming topics, outlining, draft text),
“low-stakes texts” (e.g., emails, minor class assignments),
“high-stakes texts” (e.g., major class assignments, job applications, research articles, grant proposals), and
“reading” (i.e., summarizing/explaining texts).
Impacts of AI writing tools on writing center appointments
One impetus for conducting this study was that at our Cornell writing center, our appointments
declined 60% from fall 2022 to spring 2024. Our research indicated it was due to clients turning
to ChatGPT, which was released in November 2022. We surmised other writing centers may
have been experiencing a similar decline, but in our 2023 report, we observed that about the
same number of services experienced a decrease (30%; n=23), increase (32%; n=24), or no
change (29%; n=22).
This year, we asked this broader and more direct question: “ChatGPT was introduced in
November 2022. Since then, has your writing center seen a decrease in demand for services?”
The results again were mixed, though one notable change was that fewer centers reported an
increase in demand (Figure 6). This change may signal an abatement to a post-Covid rebound
that some centers reported on last year’s survey.
Figure 6
ChatGPT Was Introduced in November 2022. Since Then, Has Your Writing Center Seen a
Decrease in Demand for Services?
Of those that saw a decrease, the rate for the majority was not dramatic—less than 30% (Figure
7). However, 12 witnessed drops between 31% and 80%. When asked if the decrease was
caused by AI writing tools, 10 were unsure while 11 felt it was. The 11 had no direct evidence
(e.g., student surveys), only indirect evidence (e.g., usability rates declining, increase in AI-
21
(26%)
29
(36%)
16
(20%)15
(19%)
Yes, we've had a
decrease No. It's about the same No, we've actually
seen an increase I'm not sure
11
generated texts during sessions) or anecdotal evidence (e.g., a client told a tutor they were
using AI), an indication that more research needs to be done.
Figure 7
About How Much of a General Decrease?
When asked what other factors might have caused a decrease, four felt the pandemic still might
have lingering effects, such as fatigue/burnout. Others mentioned local factors, such as a
decline in institutional enrollment and staff turnover leading to inconsistent scheduling. Four
participants believed that there was less demand because professors were either assigning
more in-class writing to prevent students from using AI writing tools or just assigning less writing
in general. As one administrator explained, “Professors are assigning less writing partly
because of not wanting to deal with AI.”
If AI writing tools are leading to a decline in appointments, it stands to reason that declines took
place after ChatGPT 3.5 was introduced in November 2022. Participants indicated this to be
true, noting decreases starting in spring 2023 and latently peaking in fall 2023 (Figure 8).
However, there is less of a decrease in spring 2024, evidence that AI writing tools’ negative
impact might be waning.
9
(43%)8
(38%)
4
(19%)
0
(0%)
A little (1-30%) Some (31-49%) A lot (51-80%) Severely (81-100%)
12
Figure 8
When Did the Decrease Primarily Occur? (Select as Many as Apply.)
In sum, some writing centers experienced a decline in service that participants felt was at least
partially caused by clients turning to AI writing tools. Why was this decrease not universal?
There is evidence that declines correspond to the clients that they served. Services that worked
primarily with graduate and professional students proportionally saw more than twice as much
decrease than those that served undergrads. Specifically, of the 81 participants, 19 (23%)
reported primarily serving graduate students at 15 institutions, and nearly half of these (47%;
n=9) witnessed a decrease in service since ChatGPT 3.5 was introduced, while six (32%) saw
services remain about the same, and four (21%) were not sure
3
. Contrast this with the 58 writing
centers who primarily served undergrads of which only 11 (19%) experienced a decline, 21
(36%) were about the same, 15 (26%) saw an increase, and 11 (19%) were not sure.
One likely reason that undergraduate-focused services did not see much of a decline is that
undergraduate students might be required to make appointments. Thirty (52%) of the
undergraduate-focused services reported having mandatory services for some students, while
only four (21%) of the graduate-focused services did so.
Another factor to consider is what clients were using AI writing tools for. Participants affiliated
with undergraduate-focused services reported clients mostly used them for writing content for
high-stakes texts (e.g., major class assignments) (n=38) and to formulate ideas (n=33). For
3
Of the 19 participants who indicated they primarily served graduate students, four universities were
represented twice–so only 15 institutions were represented. Oddly, for three of the institutions, one
representative felt there was a decrease and the other was not sure, indicating answers were subjective.
For this reason, all responses were included–even from the same institution.
2
(10%)
7
(33%)
17
(81%)
13
(62%)
0
(0%)
Fall 2022 Spring 2023 Fall 2023 Spring 2024 I'm not sure
13
graduate-focused services, the most common reason was to adjust for second language issues
(e.g., syntax, phrasing) (n=15) followed by proofreading (n=14) and writing content for low-
stakes texts (e.g., emails).
One interpretation is that undergraduate writing is done primarily for class assessment.
Professors guard carefully against students using AI writing tools to gain an unfair advantage,
which may discourage undergraduate students from using AI writing tools. Furthermore, some
of our survey participants indicated that if undergraduate students are suspected of using AI
writing tools unethically, they may be required to go to the writing center for a consultation.
Thus, writing centers focused on undergraduates may not see their occupancy rates negatively
impacted.
However, graduate student writing is generally more high-stakes, written for a specific audience
seeking information, such as with articles in an academic journal. Correctness is crucial for
public-facing work, and thus AI writing tools are used to proofread and adjust for additional-
language issues (i.e., written accents). There is less danger of graduate students cheating and
having AI write content for them, since their writing is often representative of their academic
reputations and AI-generated writing could be construed as plagiarism. However, using AI
writing tools to address language issues seems to be generally accepted. For example, Elsevier
(n. d.), the largest academic journal publisher, states that contributors are allowed to use AI
writing tools,” but only to improve the language and readability of their paper and with the
appropriate disclosure”. Thus, the decline could at least in part be due to English as additional
language users turning away from writing centers to AI writing tools to adjust their written
accents
4
.
AI Writing Tools’ Impact on Working with Clients and Training Tutors
Participants’ answers to two survey questions indicate that they believed AI writing tools will
change aspects of the writing center. In the first question, participants were asked if they
thought AI writing tools would change the way writing centers work with clients. Of the 81 that
answered, 63 (78%) indicated that they did, 13 (16%) were not sure, and only five
5
(6%) did not.
Contrast these figures to the 2023 survey (Figure 9). Proportionally, positive and negative
opinions are similar, but there are substantially fewer who are not sure. Perhaps opinions are
becoming clearer.
4
We concluded that this was the case for the decrease that our own writing center experienced.
5
Interestingly, the five were all administrators, not tutors/consultants. If generally tutors/consultants are
younger than administrators, perhaps the new generation believes AI writing tools will have more impact
on writing centers than the previous generation.
14
Figure 9
Do You Think GAI Tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude) Will Change the Way Writing
Centers Work with Clients?
This year, we added two follow up questions. The first asked the five participants who did not
feel there would be change to explain their answer. Four of them felt that AI writing tools are
important but not revolutionary. One stated, “I think that GAI use will evolve to be yet another
tool available to consultants and students, but that it will not fundamentally change what we do
when meeting with a student.” Another was much more cynical, claiming, “The idea of growing
and learning as a writer, reader, and so forth is no longer something anyone cares to do. It is all
about efficiency and shortcuts. I am actually stepping down as WC director in part because I
don't want to run a writing center any longer in this environment.”
In the second follow-up question, participants were asked how much AI writing tools will change
the way writing centers work with clients (Figure 10). Based on these data, it appears that most
participants felt that AI writing tools are changing the way writing centers work with clients,
though the changes may be only marginal. Four, however, felt that the changes will be dramatic.
2
(3%)
53
(75%)
16
(23%)
5
(6%)
63
(78%)
13
(16%)
No Yes I'm not sure
2023
2024
15
Figure 10
How Much Do You Think They Will Change the Way Writing Centers Work with Clients?
6
Sixty participants elaborated on their answer. Twenty-eight felt that writing centers will need to
work with AI writing tools, ten mentioning that tutors will need to be able to use them with
clients. One stated, “Writing center consultants will need to become conversant in generative AI
usage strategies and how they affect clients' research and composition processes.” Eleven felt
that writing centers will need to engage in the ethics of using AI in writing, including identifying
AI writing and discussing if it is ethically appropriate. Four specifically mentioned that tutors will
need to help clients clarify institutional policy. These sentiments are similar to ones given for the
next item concerning how tutors are trained.
AI Writing Tools Changing How Tutors Are Trained
Similar to the previous item, compared to last year, more participants this year felt that AI writing
tools will change the way tutors are trained (Figure 11).
6
Note, no 2023 data is given because—for some reason—none was collected.
0
(0%)
35
(56%)
24
(38%)
4
(6%)
Not much Some A lot Everything
16
Figure 11
Do You Think GAI Tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude) Will Change the Way Writing
Center Consultants/Tutors Are Trained?
How much change also seems to be increasing. Figure 12 shows all categories shifted to more
change, though the majority still believe it will only be “some.”
Figure 12
How Much Do You Think They Will Change the Way Consultants/Tutors Are Trained?
Sixty-six participants wrote specific responses to how training would change. The majority (58%;
n=38) felt that tutors will need to be familiar with AI writing tools so they can effectively help
3
(4%)
55
(80%)
11
(16%)
2
(2%)
69
(85%)
10
(12%)
No Yes I'm not sure
2023
2024
3
(6%)
37
(70%)
10
(19%)
3
(6%)
1
(1%)
39
(57%)
22
(32%)
7
(10%)
Not Much Some A Lot Everything
2023
2024
17
clients. One administrator noted that training will need to, “Get tutors passed vilifying GAI tools
and to show students how to use GAI tools effectively.”
Eighteen participants felt that tutors would need to advise clients on ethical issues of using AI
writing tools. Three of them specifically mentioned that tutors would need to be able to
recognize AI-generated text and if detected, discuss plagiarism and academic integrity.
Presumably, tutors will be asked to be some type of AI police. Five other participants felt tutors
will need to explain institutional policy on AI writing tools.
It seems like a lot is being asked of tutors: learning AI writing tools so they can teach them to
clients, monitoring for unethical AI writing tool usage, and navigating various policies.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study presents evidence that as AI writing tools are becoming more commonplace; some
aspects of writing centers are already changing, including administrators’ and related parties’
attitudes, the way writing centers work with clients, and how tutors are trained. However, there
is still disagreement about if the changes will be major or minor.
To elucidate this range of opinions, we turn to the end of our survey, which asked for final
thoughts. A few participants still felt AI in general is not having much impact. One administrator
stated, “There is a lot of hype about how Gen AI is transforming the workspace and academic
life. Other than a few tech savvy students and a few who admit to submitting an essay
generated by ChatGPT, the uptake of gen AI software has been slow and lukewarm.”
However, the majority of participants felt that AI is having a substantial impact on academia,
particularly AI writing tools on writing centers. One wrote, “I don't even believe that we will have
WCs in another 10-15 years. As universities continue to be in fiscal crisis, it will be too easy to
replace all tutoring with GPT systems. And shame on all of us for not putting up more of a
fight.” Another proclaimed, “Folks either need to get on the horse or be prepared to be under
hoof.”
Some of the changes brought about by AI writing tools are positive, for example, helping some
students, such as Additional Language Speakers, write at a higher level. Other changes might
be more problematic. We find particularly troublesome the fact that tutors could be expected to
police clients for unethical AI-generated writing (i.e., plagiarism). We suspect that tutors are
being given this role because university-wide policies have not been established and the writing
center is seen as a temporary solution. However, it feels like once again the writing center is
being used to fix students because no one else knows how to deal with pressing issues.
Personally, we feel that AI’s impact on the writing center can be positive, creating new
opportunities, while allowing us to focus on what’s important, something a survey participant
expressed very well, “I think we have to stress that Writing Centers are about more than
feedback—we’re about relationship and community-building. Students still want connection to
18
others.” Perhaps AI writing tools will help address some of the mundane issues (e.g.,
proofreading), so we can focus on human connections.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Elena Kallestinova, Director of the Writing and Communication Center at
MIT, and Yvonne Lee, Director of Writing Across the Curriculum at Lehigh University. Thank you
both for providing valuable input to our report.
AI Writing Tool Disclosure Statement
ChatGPT 4o was used to suggest synonyms and phrasing. It was also used for proofreading. If
you find a typo, it’s ChatGPT’s fault.
References
Aguilar, G. L. (2024). Rhetorically training students to generate with AI: Social justice
applications for AI as audience. Computers and Composition, 71, doi:
10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102828
Bryan, M. D. (2023). Bringing AI to the center: What historical writing center software discourse
can teach us about responses to artificial intelligence-based writing tools. In D. M.
Andres, C. Chen, and L. Wilkes (Eds.) The Proceedings of the Annual Computers and
Writing Conference 2023, pp. 15-26. The WAC Clearinghouse.
Elsevier (n.d.). Publishing Ethics. Retrieved August 18, 2024, from
www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#Authors
Gardener, T. (n.d.). Teaching with WAC assignments. Retrieved August 18, 2024, from
www.teachingwacwithai.tracigardner.com/category/resource-type/assignments/
Jimenez, C. D. (2023). Teaching social identity and cultural bias using AI text generation. In A.
Vee, T. Laquintano, and C. Sschnitzler (Eds.) Teaching with Text Generation
Technologies. WAC Clearinghouse. Retrieved August 18, 2024,
www.wac.colostate.edu/repository/collections/textgened/professional-
writing/professional-writing-for-healthcare/
Lester, D. (2024). Tutors' Column: GenAI in the writing center. Writing Lab Newsletter, doi:
10.37514/WLN-J.2024.48.3.05
Lindberg, N., Domingues, A. Zweers, T., Goktas, S. (2023). Report on Chatbots’ Impact on
Writing Centers. Retrieved on August 23, 2024, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380264917_Report_on_AI_Chatbots'_Impact_
on_Writing_Centers
Matas, J. (2023). ChatGPT and the future of writing about writing. Double Helix, 11, doi:
10.37514/DBH-J.2023.11.1.09
19
McKee, H. A. (2023) Professional writing for healthcare: Writing & revising research summaries
with artificial intelligence. In A. Vee, T. Laquintano, and C. Sschnitzler (Eds.) Teaching
with Text Generation Technologies. WAC Clearinghouse.
www.wac.colostate.edu/repository/collections/textgened/professional-
writing/professional-writing-for-healthcare/
Meyer, C. A. (2023). Generative AI: The voice of the other. Double Helix, 11, doi:
10.37514/DBH-J.2023.11.1.05
Watkins, M. (2023). AI in first year writing courses. In A. Vee, T. Laquintano, and C. Schnitzler
(Eds.) Teaching with Text Generation Technologies, WAC Clearinghouse.
www.wac.colostate.edu/repository/collections/textgened/professional-
writing/professional-writing-for-healthcare/
Wang, C. (2024). Exploring students' generative AI-assisted writing processes: Perceptions and
experiences from native and nonnative English speakers. Technology Knowledge and
Learning, doi:10.1007/s10758-024-09744-3
Werse, N. R. (2023). What will be lost? Critical reflections of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence,
and the value of writing instruction. Double Helix, 11, doi: 10.37514/DBH-J.2023.11.1.07
