Introduction

Our students often face the troubling misconception that “good” writing just happens. For generations, students have spit out an entire essay in one sitting and considered themselves finished without any real regard for feedback. Perhaps this is why so many argue that while Artificial Intelligence LLMs like ChatGPT should not be solely responsible for writing students’ essays, they can, in fact, be a valuable tool for fulfilling the “less important” tasks -- generating and organizing ideas, outlining, and proofreading. This is a proposed use for AI that has been touted not just by those in tech, but even by some educators. It’s not just clout-chasers on TikTok, either; huge organizations rooted in educational services proudly publish thinkpieces on how schlepping off these “simple” tasks can give students more confidence to attack the “actual” task: writing the essay (Wells).

What this perspective conveniently ignores, though, is the age-old pedagogical mantra: that writing is a process, not a product. This is an idea that professionals in the secondary English language arts field have held true for decades, so why does the field seem so ready to sacrifice it at the altar of efficiency and simplicity? For starters, we have rarely had the space, resources, or instructional minutes to actually implement this idealistic mantra into practice. Many have long held it as a philosophical cornerstone of their practice while, often through no fault of their own, implementing writing practices into their classrooms that clearly emphasize the product over the process. This seems to have created a dissonance within the field of English education: we know in our bones that the process of writing is paramount, yet we are tempted to eliminate essential pieces of that process. Tasking AI with brainstorming and outlining on our students’ behalf would free up that precious instructional time in an educational context that increasingly demands all learning take place exclusively within the classroom. It would identify us as team players that open-mindedly embrace progress and change in an educational context that socially rewards teachers deemed as innovative and punishes those seen as clinging to outdated practices. But, as is often the case, the efficient solution is not always the most effective one.

This essay will explore why, in the face of Artificial Intelligence, it is more important than ever to emphasize the writing process in the classroom. It will integrate well-known pedagogical concepts and theories to elucidate the fact that allowing AI to co-opt any part of a students’ learning experience not only disenfranchises them, but actively stands at odds with core beliefs that the secondary ELA field has held true for generations.

Writing as a Process, Not a Product

Any English teacher worth their salt will unequivocally tell you that writing is much more than the final artifact. In fact, many might argue that a writer’s task is never finished. In the book Naming What We Know, numerous professionals in the field of rhetoric and composition compile core principles of writing studies. Their fourth “threshold concept” states that “all writers have more to learn,” further acknowledges that “learning to write effectively requires different kinds of practice, time, and effort,” and finally asserts that “revision is central to developing writing” (Adler-Kassner and Wardle vii). These concepts are proposed by Shirley Rose, Kathleen Blake Yancey, and Doug Downs, all of whom have a strong background in writing studies and are dedicated to the field of secondary English education. Their threshold concepts directly communicate the truth about what English teachers know: that writing is a living, breathing skill, is developed and refined through critical thinking tasks, and is, technically, never finalized. Similar to athletic performance, one can be incredibly well-trained and effective in their craft but can never achieve perfection; writing is likewise non-quantifiable and infinitely developing.

Even in our standardized system of secondary education, the powers that be seem to at least implicitly understand the importance of the process of writing. Indeed, the Iowa Academic Standards, published by the Iowa Department of Education, outline specific standards that acknowledge the value of drafting and revision. As young as kindergarten, the Literacy Standards require that students can “respond to questions and suggestions from peers and add details to strengthen writing as needed” (“Iowa Academic Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects”). By third grade, this standard evolves to “develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, and editing (“Iowa Academic Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects”). For secondary students, this standard remains in place and adheres to the exact same wording. Furthermore, the eleventh and twelfth grade standards additionally call for students to be able to “Use technology to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information” (“Iowa Academic Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects”), and that they should be able to “Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision)” (“Iowa Academic Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects”). While many English teachers would likely object to the implication that planning, revision, and editing can be measured and assessed, these standards nevertheless prove that even a system deeply entrenched in efficiency and productivity recognizes the value of the writing process.

Therefore, the newly popular suggestion that secondary students’ learning can be maximized by allowing AI chatbots to generate ideas, create outlines, or make revisions runs contrary to the widely accepted notion that writing must involve a process. In fact, for many students, these tasks may even be more important than the final writing artifact itself. Many of them will not go on to write cleanly formatted, traditional essays in their personal or professional lives, but many of them will, in fact, utilize the brainstorming, outlining, and revision skills that they glean from participating in the full writing process. These skills are not solely relevant to the writing process; they are transferable to real-world problem solving and can enhance our students’ organizational management and critical thinking skills. The following sections will expand on how engaging in the writing process to its full extent is not only integral to developing strong writers, but further integral to developing well-rounded, independent thinkers.

Brainstorming

Every excellent piece of writing starts with a mere idea. Be it fiction or nonfiction, audiovisual or textual in nature, the heart of communication, in many ways, is the idea that it began with. While ideas often can -- and in fact, should -- change and evolve over time, that initial spark holds just as much importance as its subsequent iterations. The ability to generate ideas, evaluate their validity, and eventually expand upon them is not just evidence of creativity, but also the ability to effectively respond to one’s rhetorical situation. Ideas do not simply appear from thin air. Rather, they are informed by the writer’s prior experiences, consciously or not, and often created by stimulating, writing-based activities. In the aforementioned collection, Naming What We Know, Heidi Estrem, an English professor at Boise State University, asserts that “writing is a knowledge-making activity” (19). She explains that “We don’t simply think first and then write… We write to think” (Estrem 19). Estrem’s claim directly opposes the assertion that AI chatbots can replace the brainstorming stage of the writing process. Many reputable academic institutions unabashedly declare that this is one of the most effective ways to utilize generative AI in the classroom. The University of Kansas’ Center for Teaching Excellence, for instance, states in a blog post that “Most students struggle to identify appropriate topics for their writing. Generative AI can offer ideas and provide feedback on students’ ideas” (“Using AI ethically in writing assignments”). It’s worth noting that this blog post does not list an author -- not uncommon for these bite-sized tech thinkpieces. Why should educational professionals trust faceless, uncited, untraceable advice over credible, well-known individuals?

If we accept Estrem’s idea that we must write to think, then perhaps we can contextualize The University of Kansas’ statement that students often struggle to generate ideas for their writing. How, exactly, are these students being asked to generate ideas? Are they being exposed to interesting, multimodal brainstorming activities? Or are they simply being asked to spit out a topic on command like a trained animal? If students are having trouble identifying a topic, the solution should not be to remove the burden of thinking, it should be to engage more deeply in thinking. Instructors must equip students with adequate time to brainstorm and engage them in activities that call upon their past experiences to exploit their creativity. Encouraging students to cognitively offload these paramount tasks will only harm them in the long run, as evidenced by Dr. Michael Gerlich, a researcher at the SBS Swiss Business School. Therefore, while it may be tempting to save those instructional minutes by having AI generate ideas on behalf of students, it is counterproductive to what we know about creating effective writers and thinkers.

Outlining

We have established that brainstorming is a vital piece of the writing process, but perhaps once students have their ideas in mind, they could call upon the help of ChatGPT to organize their thoughts into a logical, natural structure. This is a premise that even some English teachers might support, as the validity of utilizing a formal outline as part of the writing process has been called into question by some in the field. For example, Kristin Milligan, an educator from East Central College, has advocated that formal outlines stifle students’ individuality in their writing. In her contribution to the book Bad Ideas About Writing, Milligan references Howard Gardner’s concept of “multiple intelligences,” stating that those with a mathematical type of intelligence prefer outlines, while others prefer to prepare for writing an essay in different ways (164). It can therefore be concluded from Milligan’s statement that rigid outline templates do not benefit every student. As most educators can attest to, differentiating material based on student interests, abilities, and preferences is vital. Milligan concedes, though, that “It’s good for writers to collect their thoughts before jumping into the physical process of writing…” (163), so likely the best approach would be for an instructor to create several “outline” options for students to select; or even better, to have students create their own outline according to their needs.

This conclusion directly negates any arguments in favor of utilizing an AI chatbot to outline a students’ essay for them. First, asking AI to create an outline based on an idea will likely generate the type of “formal” outline that Milligan is referring to. According to OpenAI, the artificial intelligence company that developed ChatGPT, the software is “designed to understand and respond to user questions and instructions by learning patterns from large amounts of information” (“How ChatGPT and our foundation models are developed”). It is likely, then, that if a student were to ask ChatGPT to generate an essay outline for them, it would simply generate an organizational style that is popularly used, not necessarily one that best fits the students’ topic or individual writing style. Perhaps more importantly, ChatGPT cannot differentiate according to our students’ unique needs because it does not know our students. Milligan definitively asserts that rigid outlines stifle creativity and progress because they do not account for the individuality required in the writing process; therefore, how would handing the task of outlining a paper off to a chatbot alleviate this issue? It would only hinder student writing that much more. Again, it is clear that the only benefit to utilizing AI for a particular writing task is that it would save time. If we truly want students to become improved writers, though, we are better off exercising our professional abilities to give them pre-writing activities that honor their individuality and learning styles.

Revision

One of the most important factors in emphasizing the process of writing over the product is to have students engage in revision. Like brainstorming and outlining, though, having students complete multiple drafts of one essay can be a time suck, so it’s no wonder why some educators have turned to artificial intelligence for solutions. Many have posited that ChatGPT could act as an editor: students plug in their essay, and ChatGPT regurgitates an “improved” version. In defense of this theory, another unauthored blog post from The Writing Center at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill posted: “AI tools can help you improve your text at the sentence level… AI-generated text is generally free of grammatical errors. You can insert text you have written into an AI tool and ask it to check for grammatical errors or offer sentence level improvements” (Generative AI in Academic Writing”). Again, though, this does not account for the fact that every writer’s individual voice and style is different, and the secondary classroom is where students hone those skills. Still, though, if students can engage with AI revision critically, is there really a problem?

The pedagogical findings of English educators would suggest that it is. Doug Downs, a professor at Montana State University who has been teaching composition for nearly thirty years, states that “Revision works because writing shares a characteristic of other language-based endeavors: using language not only represents one’s existing ideas, it tends to generate additional language and ideas” (66). Just like Heidi Estrem’s earlier claim that writing is a knowledge-making activity, Downs demonstrates that revision is more significant to the writing process than simply fixing grammatical errors and line editing; it is a vehicle for actually improving an essay’s ideas. Downs offers the metaphor of a car driving with headlights on: at any given moment, the driver can only see what is several feet ahead of them, but by the end of the drive, they have a complete picture of their trip (66). In a similar way, writers often spark fresh ideas or make new connections as they write, and revising the essay as a whole to include these can help them achieve their purpose with increased accuracy. ChatGPT could offer suggestions for new ideas, but that causes a serious disruption in the writing process: rather than these ideas occurring organically as the result of “writing to think” (as Estrem puts it), ideas are simply fed to a passive student. Again, this kind of cognitive offloading could endanger students’ critical thinking abilities, like Dr. Michael Gerlich theorized.

Conclusion

There can be little doubt that every part of the writing process is vital. Brainstorming, outlining, and revising are central to developing not just effective writers, but critical thinkers. As evidenced by the many professionals mentioned in this essay, writing is more than words on a page. Rather, it is a series of connected cognitive processes, a knowledge-making activity, a task that is never finished. Texas educator Chanea Bond puts it exceptionally well:

“It’s crucial that my students develop authentic voices. Many come from historically marginalized backgrounds and have been led to believe that their perspectives are less valuable. I want them to know that their contributions are significant, and their thoughts are worthy of being heard. Students deserve the opportunity to acquire essential skills. That’s what education is! That’s our job! While some teachers say that AI can serve as a brainstorming partner or an outline generator, I believe it’s so important for students to learn these skills themselves.”

Allowing machines to do our students’ thinking for them, no matter how seemingly minor the task, is not advantageous to them. It is robbing them of their ability to think critically, develop true writing skills, and use their voice. This is simply not worth the handful of instructional minutes it would save.

The dawn of AI is exciting. There is no doubt that this new technology will change some facets of life. Still, educators should not lose sight of the pedagogical truths that have been central to our practices for generations. Rather than allow themselves to be swept away in the glamor of the “next greatest thing,” it is paramount for teachers to pause and consider what is truly best for our students. So many of them are already struggling with critical, nuanced thought and with shortened attention spans. Perhaps, in this new age, it is more important than ever to emphasize an intentional writing process. So many claim that the most successful members of the new generation will be those who can effectively use AI, but it seems instead that it will be those who are able to think without it.

Works Cited

Adler-Kassner, Linda and Wardle, Elizabeth. Naming What We Know. University Press of Colorado, 2015.

Bond, Chanea. “What Happened the Year I Banned AI.” Edutopia, 29 July 2025, https://www.edutopia.org/article/banning-ai-tools-class/.

Estrem, Heidi. “Writing Is a Knowledge-Making Activity.” Naming What We Know, edited by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle, University Press of Colorado, 2015, pp. 19-20.

“Generative AI in Academic Writing.” The Writing Center University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/generative-ai-in-academic-writing/.

Gerlich, Michael. “AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking.” Societies, vol. 15, no. 1, 3 Jan. 2025, https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006.

“How ChatGPT and our foundation models are developed.” OpenAI, https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7842364-how-chatgpt-and-our-foundation-models-are-developed.

“Iowa Academic Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.” Iowa Department of Education, June 2024, https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/standards/academics. Accessed 31 July 2025.

Milligan, Kristin. “Formal Outlines Are Always Useful.” Bad Ideas About Writing, edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, West Virginia University Libraries, 2017, pp. 163-167.

Wells, John. “Empowering Student Writers: How Teachers Can Use AI to Transform Writing Instruction.” Keep Indiana Learning, 25 June 2025, https://keepindianalearning.org/empowering-student-writers-teachers-ai-transform-writing-instruction/. Accessed 26 July 2025.

Licensing

Teacher Essays

Show the following:

Adjust appearance:

Notes