How A.I. Killed Student Writing (and Revived It)
Educators across high schools and colleges are shifting writing assignments into classrooms to combat AI misuse, as take-home writing becomes harder to monitor. In response to widespread student use of AI for homework, teachers are emphasizing personal reflection and in-class writing tasks that are harder for AI to replicate. This shift reflects a broader reevaluation of writing instruction and its role in education amid advancing AI capabilities.
- ▪Over the past year, AI use has become widespread among American students, with 62% reporting regular use for homework by December 2025.
- ▪Two-thirds of students believe AI harms critical-thinking skills, and a third use it to draft or revise writing.
- ▪Many educators now require in-class writing to ensure authenticity, moving away from take-home assignments vulnerable to AI generation.
- ▪Some teachers are redesigning prompts to focus on personal reflection, a type of writing AI struggles to produce convincingly.
- ▪Nearly 400 educators responded to a callout about how generative AI is transforming writing instruction, indicating a broad rethinking of writing's role in education.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.Credit...Video by Lauren Lancaster For The New York TimesSkip to contentSkip to site indexHow A.I. Killed Student Writing (and Revived It)High school and college teachers are watching students write, in the classroom, in order to protect against the incursion of artificial intelligence.Credit...Video by Lauren Lancaster For The New York TimesSupported bySKIP ADVERTISEMENTListen · 12:09 min Share full article1By Dana GoldsteinVisuals by Lauren LancasterDana Goldstein composed this article without the assistance of artificial intelligence. But she did use A.I.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at NYT — US.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from NYT — US
