Principles of Critical AI Literacy

As writing program faculty, we approach generative AI through a framework of critical AI literacy. For us, critical AI literacy entails learning how to evaluate the limitations and affordances of various generative AI tools for writing and reading; moreover, a critical AI literacy approach expands beyond functional tool use to critical analysis of the ethical, rhetorical, social, and ecological implications of the ways various AI tools have been designed and deployed. A critical AI literacy framework insists that the future of AI is not inevitable, and that we as faculty and students can exercise agency in choosing when and how to use or refuse AI tools for particular writing and reading tasks; additionally, a critical AI literacy framework seeks to empower students and faculty alike to advocate for more deliberative, reflective, and socially just decision making about AI technologies within our institutions and our lives. Although writing program faculty have diverse perspectives about generative AI and accordingly our approaches to teaching critical AI literacy vary across sections, we all draw upon the following guiding principles to guide our individual pedagogical choices:

Develop clear and transparent policies about generative AI use in writing classes. Writ 1150 instructors have the academic freedom to set their own syllabus policies clarifying how, when, or if students may use AI to assist with writing assignments. Some faculty may choose to allow limited, transparently disclosed AI use for some or all assignments, while others may choose to prohibit all use of AI. Alternatively, some instructors may choose to collaboratively design an AI policy with their students. Our only programmatic expectation is that instructors include clear AI policies on their syllabi and take time in class to discuss the details of and rationale for those policies with students. In presenting and discussing AI policies with students, we recommend that instructors work to cultivate a climate of trust and respectful dialogue. 

Affirm the crucial role of human writing as a form of learning, inquiry, reflection, and communication that cannot and should not be replaced by machines.
For us, writing is a profoundly social act – a way that humans converse with one another across distance and time. In our classes, we teach students how to use human writing as a method to conduct inquiry, to learn academic concepts, to reflect about their lives and values, to cultivate their uniquely human voices, and to communicate emphathetically, engagingly, and persuasively with other humans. Although we recognize that generative AI technologies are currently being adopted and promoted as writing tools in many workplace and university contexts, we contend that a person cannot effectively prompt generative AI to compose a scholarly or professional document if they do not already possess the rhetorical and content knowledge they would need to write and review that document without AI assistance. As such, the extensive instruction in human writing that we provide in writ 1150 continues to be essential–even for students who may ultimately use generative AI extensively in their careers. Our efforts to cultivate human writing and thinking deemphasize punishment and surveillance and instead focus on creating environments where students can exercise choice and agency in completing human writing tasks that they find meaningful, relevant, and ideally joyful. 

Engage students in critically analyzing the limitations and affordances of various generative AI tools for writing assistance.
Although we continue to center the human act of writing in our classes, we recognize that students can benefit from instruction in how to evaluate the limitations and affordances of various generative AI tools to assist with writing tasks such as brainstorming, researching, revising, and editing. For this reason, some Writ 1150 instructors engage students in activities where they reflectively explore using various generative AI tools for limited writing assistance – with an emphasis on introducing students to tools that have been designed specifically to support scholarly research. Furthermore, we all work to teach students about emerging scholarly norms for disclosing AI use and citing AI-Generated text in academic writing as a crucial matter of academic integrity. Furthermore, we believe that any use of generative AI should be accompanied by substantial human writing and/or conversation – engaging students in reflecting critically on how human prompting, rhetorical choice-making, and ethical judgments are fundamental whenever we choose to use AI to assist with writing and research tasks. 

Recognize that Human Feedback on Writing Is Vital for Learning. In Writ 1150, students receive intensive feedback from faculty that is designed to guide their revision of writing and support their growth as writers. Ultimately, we conceptualize faculty-generated feedback on writing as an act of meaningful human dialogue with students, and a crucial way we align our work with the Jesuit value of Cura Personalis. Because we recognize the unique scholarly expertise that all faculty have in commenting on writing, we do not use AI tools to generate feedback on or determine grades for student writing. Additionally, learning to give and receive feedback from diverse audiences is a key goal of all Writ 1150 classes. As such, we regularly engage students in providing human-generated feedback to one another. Some Writ 1150 faculty may engage students in voluntary activities in which they prompt AI tools to generate formative feedback about their writing; however, we consider these AI-assisted feedback activities to be supplemental to — rather than a replacement for – human-generated faculty feedback and peer response.

Apply a social justice lens to our AI-related instruction – including considering when and how we might choose to reduce or refuse the use of AI tools that cause harm. We are concerned about how many current AI large language models are designed in ways that algorithmically reinforce racist, sexist, heteronormative, and ableist biases, rely on unjust labor models, pose mental health risks, fail to respect intellectual property, and contribute to catastrophic climate change. We recommend that instructors include readings and discussions on syllabi that educate students about the many pressing ethical questions raised by various AI tools.  While some of us choose to combine technological critique with limited reflective use of AI, we also fully support instructors’ academic freedom to refuse the use of any AI tools that do not align with their values. We would note that refusal to use (or allow use) of a tool should not be equated with refusal to discuss the tool with students – as any AI refusal will be most pedagogically meaningful if it’s explained and used as a starting point for dialogue.

Ensure students have agency in deciding whether or not to input their words into an AI large language model. While current AI tools vary in how they do (or do not) collect user data, we are concerned that many AI tools train their models based on user data in ways that are not readily transparent. We recommend that instructors discuss the privacy policies and settings of any AI tools we demonstrate in class. We also believe students should retain control over when or if their words are inputted into an AI tool; as such, writing instructors should refrain from directly inputting student writing into AI tools. Moreover, when instructors choose to engage students in using generative AI for class activities, we strongly recommend that instructors express willingness to provide an alternative form of engagement for any students who have an ethical objection to using that particular tool (even if that tool has adequate data privacy protections).  

Prioritize student voices in the ongoing conversation about generative AI in writing instruction. Rejecting simplistic assumptions about how today’s college students use and feel about generative AI, we commit ourselves to ongoing dialogue with students as we refine our approaches to AI in the coming years. Writ 1150 instructors prioritize student voices about AI in many ways – by engaging students in public writing and media making about AI, by collaboratively developing AI course policies with students, and by gathering student feedback about what kind of AI-related instruction (if any) would be most and least helpful to them in writing classes. We see ourselves as learners as well as teachers in the evolving AI landscape, and we seek to cultivate inquiry-based classes in which we can learn from and with our students about AI and other pressing social issues.