Help students – A community college English instructor began seeing sharply different student essay outcomes—some papers polished after heavy AI drafting, others struggling with clarity. Instead of banning tools, she tested an approach that treats AI as a revision assistant.
Fall 2023 started like any semester—until the essays began telling two very different stories.
In one-on-one conferences, a pattern emerged. Some students turned in writing that looked unusually polished, especially in grammar. Yet in those meetings. several admitted they had relied heavily on AI tools. at times using them to generate full drafts. What unsettled the instructor wasn’t only the reliance—it was that many of those students didn’t believe they had done anything wrong.
Other students arrived with the opposite problem: rough drafts, underdeveloped ideas, and writing that was hard to follow. More than once. the instructor found herself wondering whether those students could have benefited from running their drafts through an AI tool—specifically earlier and more intentionally—before meeting with her.
That contrast pushed a simple question into the center of her teaching: if students were taught to use AI more deliberately and critically, could it strengthen their writing instead of replacing it?
She didn’t try to solve the issue with a ban. She chose an experiment.
AI literacy. defined as the ability to critically evaluate AI technologies. communicate and collaborate effectively with AI. and use AI as a tool online. at home. and in the workplace—became the guiding framework. Over time, she saw that the real issue wasn’t access to AI. Students were using it frequently. The gap was confidence: while many students reported using AI tools, their confidence in using them effectively was much lower.
The result was a new revision approach in which AI was positioned as an assistant, not a substitute.
The assignment began with a character analysis research paper students had previously submitted. Instead of treating AI feedback as something to accept wholesale—or ignore—the instructor asked students to revisit their drafts and run them through the Hemingway Editor. an AI writing assistant designed to focus on sentence clarity. structure. grammar. and readability.
Students weren’t told to simply accept the output. They had to review between three and eight suggested changes. From there, they could accept the suggestions, revise them in their own words, or reject them entirely.
The tool also let students adjust the reading level of their drafts, which became a recurring theme in their conversations—especially around how clarity can flatten a student’s voice or oversimplify ideas.
Unlike generative tools, Hemingway doesn’t produce new content. It presents options.
After revising, students compared their original and revised drafts and wrote a brief reflection explaining what changes they made and how interacting with the AI tool influenced their writing process.
Before the assignment, student preparation for AI use looked uneven. Some students could distinguish between generative tools that produce content and assistive tools intended to support revision. Others reported little familiarity with AI writing tools at all. Those with prior experience tended to mention platforms such as Grammarly or ChatGPT. but their understanding of when—and how—to use tools effectively varied.
Students also brought clear fears into the project. The most common concerns centered on AI generating incorrect information, reducing their individual voice, or crossing ethical lines that felt uncomfortably close to cheating.
Even so, the assignment created room for those anxieties rather than shutting them down. Students confronted the concerns through guided use and reflection instead of treating the topic as taboo.
Many found that using an assistive tool during revision helped. They reported improvements in grammar, clarity, and sentence length. Several said the tool helped them spot patterns in their writing they had previously overlooked.
Not everyone felt the same way. Some students resisted, describing Hemingway’s suggestions as overly simplistic or “robotic.” Yet even in those cases, many students still made meaningful revisions—selecting only what aligned with their intentions and rejecting the rest.
For the instructor. the mixed reaction carried a clear lesson: when students use AI matters as much as whether they use it at all. She also wondered aloud about her own classroom timing—how outcomes might shift if AI were introduced earlier in the writing process instead of after a paper had already been graded.
That reflection became the basis for an updated version of the assignment for Spring 2025.
Hemingway Editor remained the tool of choice because students sometimes felt overwhelmed by the site’s volume of feedback. The assignment also kept its core structure—students had to evaluate and select suggestions rather than accept generated content.
Several changes were made. Students were given structured, in-class time to work with Hemingway Editor, starting with a brief demonstration followed by independent practice. The timing was adjusted as well: students used the AI tool before submitting their final drafts. placing it within the drafting process rather than as a post-assignment reflection. And a follow-up survey question asked whether students’ concerns about using AI in academic settings had changed after completing the assignment.
Comparing the two versions of the project sharpened one point for the instructor: instructional framing shapes student behavior.
When AI use was optional and did not affect grades, students experimented more freely, but also more casually. When the assistant became part of the graded writing process. students were noticeably more selective—treating the tool as something to consult. question. and sometimes reject rather than blindly follow.
Modeling played a role, too. When the instructor demonstrated how to work through the tool transparently—thinking aloud about which suggestions to accept or reject—students became more confident in making their own decisions and less reliant on the tool to “fix” their writing.
Looking ahead, she plans future iterations that ask students to experiment with multiple AI tools or use different tools at different stages of the writing process. The goal is to give students opportunities to evaluate AI tools for themselves, strengthening critical judgment and ethical awareness.
This project was limited to a single course. but it leaves a broader takeaway behind her desk: students benefit less from strict rules or blanket warnings than from clear expectations. guided practice. and space to reflect. When AI is treated as a partner rather than an enemy. students are more likely to engage actively with their writing—and leave prepared to use these tools responsibly beyond the classroom.
Sara Welshimer, a community college English instructor at Amarillo College who teaches first-year composition, focuses her work on writing pedagogy, AI literacy, and helping students use emerging technologies ethically and thoughtfully as part of the writing process.
AI literacy Hemingway Editor writing pedagogy first-year composition assistive AI tools ethics in education student writing