After reading my newsletter on how faculty members have despaired over AI misuse in students’ writing, Law wrote in to describe her work. Over the past year and a half, she has experimented with adding “rhetorical prompting,” which she describes as the use of AI-generated or AI-guided questionsto deepen critical thinking, to her writing course.
Here’s a summary, in her own words, of how she describes what she does:
Authentic first, technical second. Instead of introducing students directly to conventional thesis-driven writing assignments, I use rhetorical prompts that harness AI as a “thinking partner.” Through these prompts, students freely generate ideas, reflect on them, and refine their perspectives before they even settle on a thesis. This process circumvents early-stage writer’s block, fosters creativity, and encourages students to articulate views they truly care about. I do this through a custom GPT I created using OER resources: https://chatgpt.com/g/g-KwpWcnhqe-openstax-writing-guide-assistant
Elevating meta-cognition. The rhetorical prompting model doesn’t just help students form ideas; it compels them to ask why they’re writing and for whom. They learn to anticipate a readership, consider tone, and tailor their voice to an imagined audience. Even though generative AI is involved at the onset, the model is designed to enhance their metacognitive awareness. Students practice guiding their AI assistants with precise prompts, improving the clarity and originality of their own thought processes.
Critical thinking. One of the most powerful benefits of integrating rhetorical prompting into the writing process is that it fosters deeper self-reflection. As students respond to AI-generated prompts, they become more aware of how and why they generate specific ideas, helping them uncover biases or assumptions they might otherwise overlook. This ongoing dialogue with AI encourages them to monitor, evaluate, and adjust their thinking, thus strengthening the critical-thinking skills that are vital for authentic writing.
A new paradigm for process-based writing. This approach fits well with the stages of process-based writing in a recursive model (brainstorm, outline, draft, revise). The main difference is that rhetorical prompting gives each stage more momentum, more self-awareness, and a more-direct connection to real-world communication contexts. The result, I believe, is more engaging, reflective, and genuinely authentic student work.
I asked Law what she has learned since she began using this approach in 2023. Did students’ voices actually come through in their writing? Did anyone simply take an AI shortcut and not do the harder work? She said that preliminary data from first-year students show that they are engaging with AI as she had hoped. While some initially overrelied on AI output, they learned to compare that output with what they had wanted to say, and identify what was missing.
Law noted that because her methods mirror the traditional process of prompting, revising, and evaluating one’s writing, it feels “familiar but more dynamic” to students. By using AI they can, she wrote, “experiment with tone, structure, and content while also easing writer’s block.”
“They start by crafting intentional prompts based on purpose, audience, and context — skills that are foundational to effective communication. From there, they reflect on their outputs, asking critical questions: Is this aligned with my goals? What biases or assumptions does it reveal? How does this reflect or challenge my voice? That reflection leads to revisions and refinements, and they continue prompting until the final piece feels authentically theirs. The method also prioritizes ethical engagement. Students aren’t just producing content — they’re learning to be responsible for the output, understanding that AI is only as good as their ability to guide it with precision and thoughtfulness.”
To learn more about Law’s approach, check out her guest blog at Macmillan Learning. She is interested in hearing from others who are trying similar strategies in writing courses. If that’s you, write to me at beth.mcmurtrie@chronicle.com and your story may appear in a future newsletter.
Talking about grade inflation
Last year The Chronicle started a podcast, College Matters, hosted by Jack Stripling, a senior writer. This week’s guest is Teaching’s own Beckie Supiano.
Beckie and Jack dig into grade inflation, looking at why grades have been rising over time and how much of that shift has been shaped by improvements in teaching, increased pressures on professors to give good grades, and cheating, among other things. They also explore one of Beckie’s favorite topics: What does an A really mean?
Take a listen here. And if you want to refer back to some of our coverage on grades, check out these pieces:
Thanks for reading Teaching. If you have suggestions or ideas, please feel free to email us at beth.mcmurtrie@chronicle.com or beckie.supiano@chronicle.com.
—Beth
Learn more at our Teaching newsletter archive page.
