On a Tuesday morning last semester, students in my Writing II class engaged in debate. After the topic of AI and college classes came up, a spokesperson for one group, a young woman, spoke up from the back of the room, beginning with “I’m in college for a reason.” She said, “Sure, I could ask ChatGPT to summarize an article for me, but how does that build my analytical skills?”
She continued; we listened (and I found myself internally nodding yes to each point she made). In those moments, I felt myself relax, the opposite of the usual apprehension I feel when AI is being touted by PD-pitchers or debated among teachers. I thought – This is what has been missing: the student voice.
Our AI-infused world has ushered in a sense of vertigo; that is, technology has moved faster than our understanding of its implications. To pretend any educator or institution has the singular, right approach to the ever-evolving AI availability is disingenuous. The approach does not exist, and we have been figuring out that our early efforts to combat students’ unethical AI use are falling short. The surveillance tactics and fear-messaging have not curbed AI use. We know checkers can be faulty, and trust between teachers and students has been negatively impacted (Luo).
It is easy to understand how the varied responses to AI across institutions, society, and classrooms have left students feeling confused, causing many to stay silent while attempting to discern how much AI use, if any, crosses the line.
For example, this past May, commencement speakers at multiple graduation ceremonies were booed for their references to AI. This includes a business executive who was booed by arts and humanities graduates after referring to the rise of AI as “the next industrial revolution” (Shahin).
All students deserve a voice in discussions about AI, including those who question its larger implications and those who embrace its potential as a learning tool. Students are navigating the same often conflicting landscape as teachers and higher ed administrators. With more student participation in these conversations, perhaps we can turn the page from reactive responses to proactive engagement.
My own students, along with those whose voices we hear at commencements and across digital platforms, offer a collective reminder: few groups have as much at stake in the future of AI as Generation Z, and from their front row seat, they see that in higher education, approaches to AI run the gamut – from signed “I will not use AI” contracts and blue-book essays to “cite your use of AI.”
Teachers also observe the wide range of responses in higher education. The last few years, most conversations with my English colleagues have involved our efforts to try to AI-proof our online writing classes – with emphasis on the word try. As AI becomes more pervasive, we are all grappling with the same core questions: How do we protect human creativity, judgment, and connection? How do continue to make learning meaningful? As my student reminded me, students are in college for a reason.
For me, as I have (more or less) left behind the use of AI checkers, I’m ready for less AI surveillance. I prefer to use that energy for increased dialogue with my students about what learning requires. I am ready for more two-sided conversations, student reflection, and shared inquiry into what represents true learning. And I will continue to encourage students to own their own writing and to emphasize how – in their written compositions – their voice makes the difference.
Trust Between Students and Teachers
Over the last few years, I have attended multiple professional development meetings tied to AI literacy. Few included students’ comments. My own student’s observation (“I’m in college for a reason”) made me consider my own voice and how relaxed I have become with waiting for direction from higher ups.
Math teacher Al Rabanera writes about a similar wake-up call: “I didn’t realize how much agency I had lost as a California teacher until AI showed me what I’d been missing.” Rabanera said AI revealed “how comfortable [he had] become with waiting. Waiting for district guidance. . . . Waiting to be told not just what to do, but how to think.”
As this past academic year concluded, one other reflection lingered with me: A heavy emphasis on warnings about AI use, followed by detection and required meetings with students who submitted AI-written drafts, particularly in my online non-synchronous classes, tainted the spirit of the classes. As Matthew Brophy points out, “When pedagogy tilts toward detection over development, it cultivates a classroom ethos of suspicion rather than community.”
Jess Luo explains, ”Trusting relationships between teachers and students are crucial in developing effective teaching, learning and assessment,” and “there is discernible concern among the higher education community that GenAI is causing an ‘erosion of trust’ between students and their teachers.”
Below are strategies to reset the table and to turn the focus of classes in the age of AI from “accusatory ambience [that] breeds anxiety” (Brophy) to purposeful, fun engagement.
Beginning-of-the-Semester Reflection
Ask students to reflect on their educational and career goals; to reflect on what they will learn in the course and the skills they will obtain. What challenges do they anticipate? What are strategies to offset those obstacles? In sum, their reflection of goals should reinforce for them why it is meaningful to be in college.
This early reflection aligns with what Pauline Stamp refers to as “Purpose-First Learning.” She suggests that teachers start day one by inviting students “to engage each learning objective [of the course]” and answer questions like “What does this objective mean to you? Why does it matter—personally, professionally, or socially?” Stamp points out that “engagement . . . emerges when learners understand why the learning matters to them.”
Ask students to reflect on their AI use – both in their private lives and in academia. Use reflection survey results to generate discussion about AI – the ways it is used in our personal lives, the mixed messaging that surrounds it, and the ethical/non-ethical use of it in college classes. This discussion needs to be a dialogue.
Student reflections, individual and collective, open the door for more conversations. When students are engaged, when they can see the value of the work, they are more likely to sit with an assignment, to analyze a prompt closely, and to seize ownership of their writing. Conversely, a Swansea University study concludes that “disengaged students are more likely to use AI tools—particularly ChatGPT—for academic assignments.”
Other strategies to build trust and investment in a class are not new and long predate the heavy AI influx:
- Along with increased dialogue, provide students with clear guidance on each assignment.
- Return students’ work quickly.
- Facilitate opportunities for students to reflect on their own growth in the course.
- When possible, comment on work in stages.
- Provide individualized feedback to students; look for opportunities to point them toward paper topics and/or experiential learning opportunities that are likely to be of interest.
From my vantage point, as some of the smoke begins to clear in the AI-infused era, what has been missing are student voices. Students are living with the realities of AI every day. They deserve a genuine seat at the table in discussions about learning and technology. Meaningful learning depends on classrooms built on trust, dialogue, and shared reflection rather than fear or suspicion. The adage still rings true: We learn as much from our students as they do from us. My student this past spring inspired me not only to remember that students are in college for a reason but also to recall my own agency as a teacher and to encourage students to harness their own voices.
Dr. Mary Ruth Wallen brings over three decades of college teaching experience to her work. A native of Inez, Kentucky, she holds dual B.A. degrees in English and Journalism from Morehead State University (1995), an M.A. in English with a creative writing emphasis from Indiana State University (1997), an MFA in Fiction from Southern Illinois University–Carbondale (2003), and a Doctorate of Arts in English Pedagogy from Murray State University (2021). Since 2003, she has been teaching at Big Sandy Community and Technical College in Prestonsburg, KY. Dr. Wallen believes that strong writing transcends genre and empowers all who practice it.
References
Brophy, Matthew. “Choose Student Support, Not Surveillance.” Inside Higher Ed, 21 May 2026, https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/teaching/2026/05/21/deter-ai-cheating-through-support-not-detection-opinion
Daniels, Anton. “Woman says Gen Z are idiots, don’t know how to do anything without AI helping them in the classroom ….” Facebook, 15 May 2026, https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4390448791283373. Accessed 26 May 2026.
Luo, J. (Jess). “How does GenAI affect trust in teacher-student relationships? Insights from students’ assessment experiences.” Teaching in Higher Education, 30(4), 991–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2341005
Shahin, Kris. “Florida graduates boo commencement speaker over AI remarks.” King5, 11 May 2026, https://www.king5.com/article/news/nation-world/florida-graduates-boo-commencement-speaker-ai/507-26810de2-d4a4-4886-92d7-68a0c08ad97e
Rabanera, Al. “AI reminded me to lead in my classroom, not follow someone else’s dictates.” CalMatters, 25 Mar. 2026, https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/03/ai-teacher-classroom-use-california/
Stamp, Pauline. “Beyond Engagement: Why Higher Education Must Start with Meaning, Not Modality.” Faculty Focus 17 Apr. 2026, https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/philosophy-of-teaching/beyond-engagement-why-higher-education-must-start-with-meaning-not-modality/
“Study shows disengaged students more likely to use AI tools for assignments.” Phys, 3 June 2024, https://phys.org/news/2024-06-disengaged-students-ai-tools-assignments.html