27 Module Five: AI in Academic Writing: Brainstorming and Outlining
5.01 Academic Research Introduction
placeholder for YouTube video
5.02 AI and Academic Research Readings
What are the potential risks and benefits of using AI for academic research and writing? Read these two short articles to learn more about what researchers are seeing as scholars begin to integrate AI in their work:
- Cummings, M. (2024, March 7). Doing more, but learning less: The risks of AI in research. Yale News. https://news.yale.edu/2024/03/07/doing-more-learning-less-risks-ai-research
- Huff, C. (2024, October 1). The promise and perils of using AI for research and writing. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/topics/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning/ai-research-writing
5.03 Discussion 1: AI-Enhanced Brainstorming
Let’s compare how different AI tools generate research topics in your field:
- 🤖 Using two different AI tools (e.g., Claude and ChatGPT):
- Ask each AI to generate 20 potential research topics in your field of study
- Use the same prompt for both tools to ensure a fair comparison
- Take screenshots of both conversations
- 😀 Compare the outputs from both AI tools, analyzing:
- The diversity of topics suggested
- The specificity and clarity of the suggestions
- Any unique strengths or limitations you noticed in each tool
- Any overlaps or gaps you noticed (🤖 can you get AI to help with this step? If so, how?)
- 😀 From the combined list of 40 suggestions:
- Select your top 3 topics
- Explain why you chose these topics
- Identify which AI tool provided them (if both tools suggested one of your topics, share both examples)
- 😀 Share what you learned about the different capabilities of each AI tool. Which one did you prefer and why? How did your Week Five readings affect your experience with this exercise?
Rubric (20 points)
No comments to classmates are required for this discussion. However, you are welcome to comment on others’ posts.
Full Credit (20 points)
- Comprehensive comparison of both AI tools’ outputs
- Includes specific examples from generated topics
- Shows critical thinking in topic selection
- Thoughtful analysis of AI capabilities
- Responds to at least two classmates
Partial Credit (10-19 points)
- Covers some but not all required elements
- Analysis lacks depth or specific examples
- Limited discussion of AI capabilities
- Minimal engagement with classmates’ posts
No Credit (0-9 points)
- Missing major components
- No evidence of using both AI tools
- No peer responses
- Fails to follow discussion guidelines
5.04 Creating an AI-Assisted Outline
Let’s develop and refine an outline for your research paper:
- 🤖 With your chosen topic:
- Ask the AI to generate a detailed outline for your paper
- Request suggestions for supporting evidence and examples
- Have the AI identify potential gaps in the outline’s logic
- 😀 Analyze and revise the AI-generated outline:
- Refine the outline based on your expertise and research goals
- Add your own supporting points and evidence
- 😀 Write a paragraph explaining:
- Which AI suggestions you kept
- Which suggestions you modified
- Which suggestions you rejected
- Your reasoning for each decision
- The time it took you to complete this outline compared with creating an outline on your own
- 😀 Engage with your classmates:
- Respond to two classmates’ outlines
- Provide constructive feedback on their work
Rubric (20 points)
Comments to at least two classmates are required for this discussion.
Full Credit (20 points)
- Shows thoughtful revision of AI-generated outline
- Includes specific examples of modifications
- Demonstrates critical thinking in suggestion selection
- Clear explanation of decision-making process
- Provides substantive feedback to at least two classmates
Partial Credit (10-19 points)
- Covers some but not all required elements
- Limited revision of AI suggestions
- Minimal explanation of changes
- Inadequate peer feedback
- Missing one or both required peer responses
No Credit (0-9 points)
- Missing major components
- No evidence of outline revision
- No peer responses
- Fails to follow discussion guidelines
