On Tuesday, Sept. 9, a roundtable discussion titled “Who Writes Better: Robots or Me?” was hosted by the Department of English in Falvey Library. Its goal was to examine the role of artificial intelligence in higher education.
The panel brought together four faculty members: Kimberly Takahata, Mary Beth Simmons, Stefan Perun and Lauren Shohet. The conversation centered on whether AI tools, such as ChatGPT, help or hinder student learning, creativity and critical thinking.
The event was facilitated by English professor Megan Quigley, who introduced the panel and framed the discussion around the challenges and possibilities of writing in an era where AI is often used to generate text. Her remarks set the stage for the discussion’s central question: what happens to learning, creativity and critical thinking when students have access to tools like ChatGPT?
Takahata shared results from her work with her sections of ENG-1975, the required sophomore English course within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. In a final assignment, students were given an open-ended, thesis-driven writing prompt, which they then ran through ChatGPT. Their task was to reflect on the process, evaluate what the AI output achieved and even grade it as if they were the instructor.
Takahata explained that she was curious about how students would respond and what they valued in writing. When she presented the grade distribution, which included results from approximately 75 students, the scores that students assigned to the AI output had shifted into the B+/A- range. She declined to interpret the results herself, noting instead that she was interested in students’ own evaluations and left the audience to consider her closing question: “Where does this leave us as we navigate this strange thinking landscape?”
Simmons spoke with optimism about her students’ desire to write.
“You’re going to love this class so much, you’re going to do your own damn writing,” she said of her message to her students.
In her classes, Simmons feeds her own prompts into ChatGPT and analyzes the outputs along with her students. They often critique the responses for lacking “voice,” which creates conversations about why their own perspectives matter. She also reminded attendees of the joy of owning one’s own work, recalling a friend’s stepdaughter’s proud declaration: “I love my brain.”
Perun presented research suggesting that AI’s impact on learning may be an illusion. He shared a study of 1,000 high school algebra students in Turkey, which compared outcomes across several groups. In the control group, where students had no access to AI during practice or exams, scores were slightly higher on the final test. Another group that was free to use GPT showed improvement in scores during practice sessions, but saw their learning and performance significantly decrease once the tool was removed, even though they reported feeling confident and claimed they understood the material.
“I have not seen anything that convinces me that AI is helpful for learning… mostly it’s a mirage,” Perun said.
Shohet highlighted AI’s advantages, pointing to its role in pattern detection, its “hyper-juiced clerical capacity” and even its ability to act as the holder of “common sense.” She explained that the tools can help writers notice overused phrases, spot terms left undefined and make large datasets more accessible. At the same time, she acknowledged its limitations. AI is explicitly designed to reproduce what is already known. It can be difficult to evaluate its results, and it often encourages a kind of “intellectual sloth.” For her, the danger lies in settling for something that appears to be polished and complete, but lacks depth.
During the Q&A portion, students and other faculty pressed the panel on AI’s effect on creativity and authenticity. Some noted that ChatGPT’s explanations misplaced key plot points, demonstrating the need for independent brainstorming and writing. Others worried about the tone of AI-produced work, which can sound unnatural. Shohet encouraged students to slow down, draft and revise their writing, instead of using AI’s quick fixes.
By the end of the evening, the panel had raised more questions than answers. Is AI helping us learn, or just making things easier? Does it propel us forward or remove the struggle that fosters growth? For now, Villanova faculty agree on one point: writing remains deeply human, and students value the work they create themselves.
