LEARNING OUTCOMES/OBJECTIVES

By the end of this lesson, tutors will be able to:

• Define and recognize markers of writer agency and ownership in the writing process
• Create appropriate responses to various scenarios where writers may surrender agency to AI tools
• Apply theoretical understanding of AI's impact on writing center pedagogy to practical tutoring strategies
• Implement specific techniques for helping writers recognize and maintain ownership of their work

MATERIALS NEEDED

• Writer Agency and Ownership in the Era of Generative AI PowerPoint

INSTRUCTIONAL PLAN

Introduction (Slide 1)

In this lesson, participants will examine how writers exercise or surrender agency and ownership when using generative AI in their writing process.

Body of Lesson (Slide 2)

Part 1: Discussing the Impacts of Generative AI on Writer Agency and Ownership (Slide 3) (30 minutes)

Introduction

In this part of the lesson, participants will engage in a small group discussion about writer agency and ownership before sharing their insight with the larger group.

Instructions (Slide 4)

• Ask participants to assign themselves to small groups of 3-4 people. Then, have them discuss the following questions:
• What does writer agency and ownership look like in practice? What choices can writers make throughout their writing process ownership over their work? (5 minutes)
• What tutoring techniques promote and develop writer agency? How can tutors help writers recognize and strengthen ownership during the writing process? (5 minutes)
• Reference Warschauer et al.’s (2023) discussion of the “‘rich get richer’ contradiction” (p. 3) (Slides 5-6).
• “On the face of things, AI-generated writing is a great leveler of linguistic inequality, as AI writing tools can give people around the world access to communication in English that is difficult to distinguish in grammar, style, or usage from that written by an educated L1 writer. But it takes a certain amount of privilege to fully exploit AI-generated writing. This includes access to digital media, living in a country in which AI tools are available, and, if they fall behind paywalls, being able to afford them. For many English learners, any one of these requirements may be a deterrent to using these tools. AI-generated writing thus runs the risk of becoming yet another contributor to the same inequality that it has the potential to address. The more powerful AI tools get, the wider the ‘language divide’ (Pearce & Rice, 2014, p. 26) may become for English learners. The key question—’is technology a tool for language learning, or is language learning a tool with which people can access technology?’ (Warschauer, 2002, p. 453)—may become even more complex with the rapid development of advanced AI tools”
  
  
• Discussion Question (Slide 7)
•  The authors note that it takes "a certain amount of privilege to fully exploit AI-generated writing." How does the ability to "fully exploit" AI tools relate to maintaining meaningful ownership of one's writing? What's the difference between exploiting AI as a tool versus being exploited by it? (5 minutes)
• Discussion Question (Slide 8) 
• In sessions where writers have already used AI in ways that may have diminished their agency, what specific strategies can tutors use to help them reclaim ownership of their work? What questions or approaches might help writers recognize and address moments where they've surrendered control to AI? (5 minutes)
• Report Back (Slide 9) 
• Have each small group share 1-2 insights with the larger group (15 minutes).

Part 2: Tricky Situations Where Generative AI Impacts Writer Agency and Ownership (Slide 10) (30 minutes)

In this part of the lesson, small groups of tutors will address difficult situations related to the impact of generative AI on writer agency and ownership before sharing their insights with the larger group.

Instructions (Slide 11)

Assign small groups of tutors to brainstorm ways to address these scenarios where students use generative AI in writing. Ensure that the participants have access to the slideshow to view their respective scenario’s slide (15 minutes):

Scenario 1: The Outsourced Decision Maker (Slide 12)A student brings in a research paper where they asked AI to "pick the most important sources" from their bibliography and "decide which quotes to use." When discussing their research process, they can talk knowledgeably about their sources but say "I let the AI choose because it knows better than me which evidence is strongest." They've read all the materials but won't make analytical decisions without AI validation.

Scenario 2: The Analysis Avoider (Slide 13)A student has gathered excellent research data but asked AI to "find the patterns" and "determine the significance." Though they deeply understand their research topic, they've surrendered the core intellectual work of analysis, saying "AI can see patterns better than humans."

Scenario 3: The Argument Delegator (Slide 14)
During a session, a student explains they gave AI their research question and had it generate three possible positions. Instead of choosing based on their research and knowledge, they asked AI to "pick which argument is best." When you ask why they support their paper's position, they respond, "Well, the AI said this was the strongest argument."

Scenario 4: The Authority Shifter (Slide 15)
A graduate student working on their methodology chapter keeps saying "the AI suggested" and "the AI recommended" for key research design decisions. When you ask about their rationale for choosing specific methods, they defer to AI's authority rather than defending choices based on their research goals and disciplinary knowledge.

Scenario 5: The Process Surrenderer (Slide 16)
A student has developed a system where AI generates their thesis, creates their outline, writes topic sentences, and develops paragraphs. Their role has become merely editing for flow. When asked about their research findings, they have clear opinions and insights but say "I don't want to mess up the logical structure the AI created."

Discussion (Slide 17)

Each group should discuss the following questions in the context of their assigned scenario:

• Where specifically has the writer surrendered their agency?
• What academic decisions has the writer given up ownership of?
• What core intellectual work is the writer no longer doing?
• How has AI shifted from tool to authority in the writing process?
• How could the writer reclaim ownership while still using AI as a tool?
• Allow each group to share their responses to their assigned situations (15 minutes).

Conclusion and Reflection (Slide 18)

Each participant will share one thing they will apply to future tutoring sessions.

ASSESSING FOR UNDERSTANDING

Facilitators will gauge the depth of insights that tutors share during the discussions and activities.

Understanding of Core Concepts

• Participants demonstrated understanding of writer agency and ownership in concrete terms
• Participants identified specific writing decisions that demonstrate ownership
• Participants engaged critically with the Warschauer quote and its implications
• Participants articulated the difference between exploiting AI and being exploited by AI

Scenario Analysis

• Participants identified specific moments of surrendered agency in scenarios
• Participants developed targeted approaches for helping writers reclaim ownership
• Participants demonstrated understanding of how to help writers maintain agency while using AI

Application in Tutoring Practice

• Participants developed specific strategies for promoting writer agency
• Participants identified practical approaches for helping writers reclaim ownership
• Participants demonstrated ability to recognize when AI use has diminished writer agency
• Participants created concrete strategies for addressing AI-impacted sessions

EXTENSIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

• To save time or better serve a smaller body of participants, convert small-group discussions into large-group discussions.
  
  
• Conduct a mock session exploring how tutors can thoughtfully integrate AI as a collaborative tool while preserving writer authority. Chloe Crull, the author of this lesson plan, presents IRB-approved research examining how AI prompts can support rather than supplant writer agency in actual writing center sessions. Her co-authored chapter in Writing Centers and AI: Generating Early Conversations (Perspectives on Writing series, WAC Clearinghouse, University Press of Colorado, and Parlor Press) includes session transcripts that reveal key moments where tutors successfully positioned AI as a generative tool while keeping writers firmly in control of their work. These transcripts provide valuable insights into the delicate balance between leveraging AI's capabilities and maintaining writer ownership over their writing process.

RESOURCES

Crull, C. V. R., & Stillman, N. M. (in press). Using AI as a second reader: Lessons learned from integrating AI into writing center sessions. In Writing centers and AI: Generating early conversations. WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado; Parlor Press.

Dobrin, S. I. (2023). AI and writing: An introduction to generative artificial intelligence for writers. Broadview Press.

Gökçearslan, Ş., Tosun, C., & Erdemir, Z. (2024). Benefits, challenges, and methods of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7, 19-39. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.600

REFERENCES

Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of generative AI -generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071