Research Article

Balancing ethics and support: Peer tutors’ experiences with AI tools in student writing

Maria Eleftheriou 1 * , Muhammad Ahmer 2 , Daniel Fredrick 1
More Detail
1 College of Arts and Sciences, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES2 College of Engineering, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(3), July 2025, ep587, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/16554
Published: 02 July 2025
OPEN ACCESS   2697 Views   3034 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Like many student writing centers, the American University of Sharjah Writing Center is seeing a rise in student reliance upon generative AI (GenAI) tools, which are artificial intelligence systems capable of generating human-like text. Peer tutors frequently seek guidance on how to approach student papers involving GenAI tools such as ChatGPT, yet writing centers have offered relatively little direction on this emerging issue. Our study examines the challenges peer tutors encounter when addressing AI use in student writing, as well as the strategies they employ to navigate these issues. A focus group discussion with peer tutors and an analysis of a collaborative document co-developed by the peer tutors provided insights into their experiences. Findings reveal that peer tutors encounter difficulties when students use ChatGPT covertly, struggle with ethical concerns about hiding AI involvement, and report inconsistencies in faculty policies regarding AI use, making it difficult to offer consistent advice to their students. To address these challenges, peer tutors encourage students to disclose their use of AI, explore their motivations for using it, and discuss both the benefits and limitations of AI tools. They emphasize students’ potential, encourage rewriting and revising AI-generated content, promote learning and independence over AI reliance, engage in discussions about ethical considerations, and advise adherence to professors’ guidelines. This research will contribute to developing practical guidelines for responding to AI in writing centers and provide peer tutors with the tools they need to navigate these changes. The study’s findings will also contribute to the evolving dialogue on academic integrity and the role of AI in higher education.
Keywords: generative AI, GenAI, AI, AI tools, writing center pedagogy, ChatGPT in education, academic integrity, AI in student writing

CITATION (APA)

Eleftheriou, M., Ahmer, M., & Fredrick, D. (2025). Balancing ethics and support: Peer tutors’ experiences with AI tools in student writing. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(3), ep587. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/16554

REFERENCES

  1. Aldossary, A. S., Aljindi, A. A., & Alamri, J. M. (2024). The role of generative AI in education: Perceptions of Saudi students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), Article ep536. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15496
  2. Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, Article 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
  3. Birks, D., & Clare, J. (2023). Linking artificial intelligence facilitated academic misconduct to existing prevention frameworks. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00142-3
  4. Bryan, M. D. (2023). Bringing AI to the center: What historical writing center software discourse can teach us about responses to artificial intelligence-based writing tools. In Proceedings of the Computers & Writing Conference (pp. 15–26). https://doi.org/10.37514/PCW-B.2024.2296.2.02
  5. Carino, P. (2003). Power and authority in peer tutoring. In M. A. Pemberton, & J. Kinkead (Eds.), The center will hold: Critical perspectives on writing center scholarship (pp. 96–113). Utah State University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46nxnq.9
  6. Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
  7. Chauke, T. A., Mkhize, T. R., Methi, L., & Dlamini, N. (2024). Postgraduate students’ perceptions on the benefits associated with artificial intelligence tools for academic success: The use of the ChatGPT AI tool. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 6(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2024.4
  8. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
  9. Corbett, S. J. (2008). Tutoring style, tutoring ethics: The continuing relevance of the directive/nondirective instructional debate. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 5(2). https://www.praxisuwc.com/corbett-52
  10. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
  11. Črček, N., & Patekar, J. (2023). Writing with AI: University students’ use of ChatGPT. Journal of Language and Education, 9(4), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.17379
  12. Creely, E. (2024). Exploring the role of Generative AI in enhancing language learning: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Changes in Education, 1(3), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42022495
  13. Deans, T., Praver, N., & Solod, A. (2023). AI in the writing center: Small steps and scenarios. University of Connecticut. https://dept.writing.wisc.edu/blog/ai-wc/
  14. Dembsey, J. M. (2017). Closing the Grammarly gaps: A study of claims and feedback from an online grammar program. Writing Center Journal, 36(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1815
  15. Directors of Writing Centers Facebook. (n.d.). Home. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/894182147280549/search/?q=ChatGPT
  16. Essid, J. (2023). Writing centers & the dark warehouse university: Generative AI, three human advantages. Interdisciplinary Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, Article 3.
  17. Freitas, H., Oliveira, M., Jenkins, M., & Popjoy, O. (1998). The focus group: A qualitative research method. ISRC. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2657165
  18. Garcia Castro, R. A., Mayta Cachicatari, N. A., Bartesaghi Aste, W. M., & Llapa Medina, M. P. (2024). Exploration of ChatGPT in basic education: Advantages, disadvantages, and its impact on school tasks. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(3), Article ep511. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14615
  19. Gill, P., & Baillie, J. (2018). Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: An update for the digital age. British Dental Journal, 225(7), 668–669. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815
  20. Hicks, M. (2024). College writing centers worry AI could replace them. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2024-08-12-college-writing-centers-worry-ai-could-replace-them
  21. Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8, 279–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142995
  22. Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023). Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT tool towards ameliorating the education system. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 3, Article 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115
  23. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
  24. Lindberg, N., & Domingues, A. (2024). 2024 report on AI writing tools’ impacts on writing centers. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383365521
  25. Lingard, L. (2023). Writing with ChatGPT: An illustration of its capacity, limitations & implications for academic writers. Perspectives on Medical Education, 12(1), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1072
  26. Luo, J. (2024). 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
  27. Playfoot, D., Quigley, M., & Thomas, A. G. (2024). Hey ChatGPT, give me a title for a paper about degree apathy and student use of AI for assignment writing. The Internet and Higher Education, 62, Article 100950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100950
  28. Rowland, D. R. (2023). Two frameworks to guide discussions around levels of acceptable use of generative AI in student academic research and writing. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 17(1), 31–69. https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/915
  29. Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Javed, I. (2024). ChatGPT awareness, acceptance, and adoption in higher education: The role of trust as a cornerstone. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00478-x
  30. Söğüt, S. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in EFL writing: A pedagogical stance of pre-service teachers and teacher trainers. Focus on ELT Journal, 6(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.6.1.5
  31. Stowe, G. (2023). Where are we now with AI in writing centers? CWCAB. https://wlnconnect.org/2023/09/26/september-2023-where-are-we-now-with-ai-in-writing-centers/
  32. Utami, S. P. T., Andayani, W., Winarni, R., & Sumarwati, S. (2023). Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive? Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), Article ep450. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13419
  33. Vetter, M. A., Lucia, B., Jiang, J., & Othman, M. (2024). Towards a framework for local interrogation of AI ethics: A case study on text generators, academic integrity, and composing with ChatGPT. Computers and Composition, 71, Article 102831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102831
  34. Zhang, J., Ozer, H. Z., & Bayazeed, R. (2020). Grammarly vs. face-to-face tutoring at the writing center: ESL student writers’ perceptions. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 17(2), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.26153/tsw/8523