Dr. Jonathan Otto
Lecturer, School of Journalism, Writing, and Media, Faculty of Arts, UBC Vancouver
Courses: WRDS 150, WRDS 151, Writing and Research in the Disciplines
In his WRDS 151 and WRDS 150 classes, Dr. Jonathan Otto works with students to develop a critical Generative AI (GenAI) literacy. This includes introducing students to the technology’s social, political, economic, and environmental dimensions and expanding their understanding of its benefits and limitations for emerging academic writers. He invites—but does not require—students to use GenAI, offering a range of structured options for integrating it into their work.
Dr. Otto scaffolds his assignments so that students who choose to use GenAI learn to do so in ways that align with academic integrity expectations, ensure data security, and respect copyright. He also teaches students to craft prompts, using tools like ChatGPT-4o and Copilot, in ways that keep them in control of their writing process rather than fostering dependence on the technology.
What are the primary sources of inspiration for your integration of GenAI into your teaching?
My work with GenAI grows out of my involvement in the We’re Only Human: Educative Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence, Academic Integrity, and Writing in the Faculty of Arts (2023–) TLEF project, led by Laurie McNeill, Associate Dean, Students, and Andrew Owen, Associate Dean, Academic. Conversations with WRDS colleagues in the School of Journalism, Writing, and Media (JWAM) and with colleagues in the UBC Faculty of Science, Faculty of Applied Science, Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Stewardship, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, Vantage College, and the Sauder School of Business have also shaped my approach. These interdisciplinary projects and conversations have helped clarify the challenges and opportunities related to integrating GenAI in my classes and have illuminated the fact that they are shared across the university.
Student Experiences
My students complete GenAI reflections as part of their work writing research proposals and research papers. In these reflections, students are asked to discuss their motivation to use or not use GenAI in their writing and to identify some of the ways their decisions around GenAI use may have facilitated or complicated their efforts. My goal with the reflections is to prompt my students to think intentionally about whether, how and why they chose to use the technology and the implications of their decisions for their own learning. I have discovered that my students’ decisions around GenAI use are quite diverse. Some are excited to identify the ways the technology might support their work as researchers and writers, while many others have some hesitancy or even full opposition to embracing it due to concerns about their intellectual development, how they will be perceived by their peers and instructors, environmental issues, and accidental violation of academic integrity.
What have been some challenges and what are your next steps?
My students have been more hesitant to openly discuss the actual ways they use GenAI tools, even when such use is permitted.
In an attempt to foster students’ critical engagement with GenAI tools, I have created detailed GenAI policies (download file below) and have updated my course assignments to provide students with a basic understanding of GenAI technology and to communicate clear guidelines regarding its use. My students have been somewhat responsive to these efforts.
They actively participate in conversations about the GenAI policies in our classes and are eager to engage in intellectual discussions about GenAI technology. However, they have been more hesitant to openly discuss the actual ways they use GenAI tools, even when such use is permitted (one exception to this is the GenAI reflections students complete as part of their larger writing assignments).
My conversations with students have revealed that this hesitancy stems from the fact that they are often navigating complex affective terrain when using GenAI, including potential concerns about environmental and ethical implications, feelings of inauthenticity when they use GenAI tools in their work, or anxiety about peer and instructor judgment. As a result, I have come to appreciate that my students do not see GenAI technology as simply another research and writing resource existing alongside more traditional library research tools, writing centre consultations, and citation management software.
In my classes, I work with my students to promote open dialogue around their GenAI use, an essential ingredient to supporting student intellectual development and to ensuring practices of academic integrity. To do so, I model the kind of transparency I would like my students to practice by openly discussing my own limited GenAI use and the reasons behind my decisions to use or not to use the technology. The goal in these discussions is to move away from reflections that may feel performative for students – or even worse, like a confession or an admission of guilt – and toward conversations rooted in self-awareness and intellectual curiosity. In an already busy term, I have found it challenging to make room for this work. However, these challenges are relatively small when compared to the value of what I have learned from my students in our conversations.
What advice would you give to other educators?
My approach to GenAI has evolved through small steps over multiple semesters. Each iteration of an assignment or policy has offered opportunities to reflect with students and colleagues and to reimagine my approach. Thus, I would encourage instructors who are interested in integrating GenAI into their teaching to do so with an open mind to the outcomes of their efforts.