Conflict Management Guide for Tutors Regarding AI Use

Rachel Willis, University of Lynchburg

With the public’s increasing reliance on AI to generate ideas as well as writing, the Writing Center finds itself at the center of conflicting institutional, professional, and individual priorities. Some institutions, faculty, and students embrace the role of AI in instruction and student learning while others oppose its use for a variety of ethical or intellectual reasons. At my institution, the writing center has adopted a mediating role in the conflicts around learning and academic integrity that AI generates.  

This fall, writing tutors began asking me how to work with students who admitted to using AI on their papers. This led to the expanded question of handling appointments with students where AI use is suspected. Our resulting discussions identified several conflicts between the Writing Center’s many supporting roles on campus:

• • We support students in the process of learning (Henning, 2001; Thonus, 2002) and student learning as an outcome (Salazar, 2021).

How can we then encourage and collaborate with students who seem to be using AI as a substitute for learning?

• • We offer a third space outside the authority of the classroom that encourages students to own their writing and develop their voice (Shimek 2023). How do we insist on student autonomy when AI writing reconstructs the hierarchy of authority through the homogenous echoes of the many voices it is trained on?
  • We further the work of faculty in helping students identify, reflect, and communicate their learning with clarity and depth and our work improves student grades (Diedrich & Shroeder, 2009).

How can we then suspect unauthorized AI use on an assignment and not let faculty know?

• • We address institutional gaps in student preparedness or risk profiles through scaffolded support, encouragement, and collaboration (Mackiewicz & Thompson, 2013; Towle, 2024). 

How can we show students the importance of our work when AI appears to be a more convenient answer? 

In addition to the Center’s work on campus, writing tutors maintain their own professional identities with their own dispositions toward AI use. How can we balance writing tutors’ ethical and intellectual concerns with the pragmatism of institutional AI policies? 

To navigate the conflicts inherent in Writing Centers’ supportive roles on campus, center directors and staff have adopted mediating positions at various levels of institutionality, authority, and professionalism.  Situated already as an academic mediator for students, the writing center must, in many case,s navigate AI use without clear guidance from the administration, as Van Davis (2023) notes in his work on AI in Higher Education. In some places, writing center directors have been asked to mediate conflicts around AI use by serving on academic misconduct panels or by originating writing program policies on AI use. At my institution, faculty members maintain individual AI policies outlined in their syllabi. Some professors encourage or require collaborative AI writing, while many forbid any AI use of any kind. Some fall somewhere in between. This means that when a tutor encounters suspected or admitted AI use, their first intervention is to point the student back to the course policies around AI and ensure students understand the implications of its use. Some students, for example, are new to concepts of intellectual property, while others may not realize AI use can constitute academic dishonesty. 

Notably, even getting to this part of the conversation can pose a conflict for tutors, who must find a way to mediate their approach to suspected AI use in a way that simultaneously allows the student to save face and the tutor to maintain their supportive role. Here are some examples they have given me:

• • “I’m worried this sounds too much like AI. Are you familiar with your professor’s policies on AI?”
  • “Do you know your professor’s stance on AI use? This paragraph resembles typical AI writing, which tends to have a lot of general information but lacks development, so that may be something to ask about. As a reader, I am looking for the writer to be more specific and to have more of an authorial voice.” 
  • “I’m concerned about the lack of sources being cited here. This is often a red flag for AI use. Is that something your syllabus allows?”

Tutors are encouraged to use their discretion when completing their appointment reports. Because students may choose to have professors receive writing center reports, writing tutors also mediate between the student and the faculty member at the report level. We include that a student used AI in the summary of an appointment only if the student told their tutor. However, tutors do not use the appointment report to document AI use when it is merely suspected and instead send me a separate email. Tutors may also take this approach if the student admits AI use, but the tutor does not feel comfortable “turning the student in,” so to speak. This is where I step in to mediate on the tutor’s behalf. In the event that I receive an email documenting a student’s admitted or suspected use of AI on an assignment, I reach out to the faculty to let them know the tutor had a concern about the student’s work on the assignment that may warrant the professor’s review.  

Initially, I was hesitant to take on this mediating role, concerned that it may lead to investigations into student work that are not warranted. As Elyse Pelzer (2023) indicates, inconsistencies around faculty handling of academic dishonesty can make writing centers loathe to intervene in these issues. Thus, tutors are encouraged to be careful about how they approach their mediating role in students’ work by first being clear with their students about typical standards of academic integrity around AI use. Nevertheless, when my tutors clarified that they do not want to “help students cheat,” I realized that occasionally flagging student work for review by faculty would mediate the conflict my tutors face between their own professional integrity and their obligations to students. This is consistent with research like Stephen Kwame Dadugblor’s work on “Collaboration and Conflict in Writing Center Notes,” which points out that tutors may avoid reporting conflict in appointments when reports are visible to professors or students while flagging such conflict for their directors. Using the director to mediate these conflicts allows the tutor to navigate the divergences between their professional role, personal ethics, and institutional hierarchies they face around AI use on campus. 

AI Use in Writing Centers: Decision-Making Workflow for Tutors

Given the increasing use of AI tools in student writing and the various conflicting roles writing centers play, tutors must navigate their approach to AI in ways that balance their professional integrity, institutional policies, and student needs. The following workflow offers a structured approach for tutors to use when encountering AI-related issues in writing center sessions. This workflow supports writing tutors in navigating AI use in a way that balances institutional needs, supports student learning, and maintains academic integrity. It encourages reflection, provides clarity on roles, and facilitates mediation between students, tutors, and faculty.

Step 1: Initial Assessment of AI Use

Situation: Student has admitted to using AI, or tutor suspects AI usage.
Action:

1. 1. Inquire Respectfully: Ask the student if they used AI tools (e.g., “I’m noticing some patterns in your writing that could resemble AI-generated text. Did you use any AI tools to assist with this paper?”).
   2. Contextual Understanding: Ask the student if they are aware of their professor’s policies on AI use (e.g., “Do you know what your professor’s stance on AI is for this assignment?”).

Unusual Situation: Student is using AI as required/encouraged by the assignment but is expressing resistance to or frustration with AI use.

Action:

1. 1. Determine Intervention: Is the student ethically opposed to AI writing or is the student feeling suppressed or too-heavily guided by the required use of AI?
   2. Offer Contextualized Support: Encourage student to share concerns with professors and work with student to re-introduce their personal style or writing voice into the assignment or to brainstorm ideas and support the student’s expertise.
   3. Skip to Step 3

Step 2: Clarifying Institutional Policies

Situation: Student is unsure about the institution’s or professor’s policy on AI use.

Action:

1. 1. Explain the Academic Context: Help the student understand how AI use may affect their academic integrity (e.g., “Many institutions consider AI-generated text as potentially violating academic honesty policies. It’s important to be clear about how it fits with your course’s expectations.”).
   2. Refer to Course Policy: Guide the student to refer back to their professor’s syllabus to clarify AI usage boundaries (e.g., “It looks like this writing may not fully align with your professor’s expectations. Let’s take a look at the syllabus to be sure.”).

Step 3: Supportive Collaboration

Situation: Tutor believes the student can still benefit from support while addressing AI use.

Action:

1. 1. Offer Constructive Feedback: Shift the focus to helping the student improve their original work and voice. Encourage revision by fostering their voice and critical thinking (e.g., “Let’s try refining some of these points and making them more specific. AI can’t always capture your unique perspective, and I’d like to help you articulate that.”).
   2. Develop Student Autonomy: Support the student in strengthening their understanding of the writing process and academic integrity (e.g., “You’ve got a good foundation here, but let’s work on making your argument more your own.”).

Step 4: Documenting the Session

Situation: AI use is confirmed or suspected and the tutor needs to decide whether to document it.

Action:

1. 1. Document AI Use Only When Admitted: If the student admits using AI, include this information in the appointment report. Otherwise, tutors should avoid documenting suspected AI use unless confirmed by the student.
   2. Separate Communication for Suspected AI Use: In the case of suspected AI use, send a separate, confidential email to the writing center director to review the situation and determine next steps.
   3. Maintain Support During Appointment: Respect student support needs and offer guidance toward student voice and autonomy or away from AI while continuing with the appointment. Focus on higher order concerns and construct feedback highlighting where student thinking is best demonstrated or needed.

Step 5: Mediation with Faculty

Situation: The writing center director needs to be involved in mediating AI-related concerns.

Action:

1. 1. Director Intervention: If AI use is confirmed or suspected, and it needs further investigation, the writing center director can contact the faculty to address the concern (e.g., “I wanted to let you know that a tutor had some concerns about potential AI use in a student’s paper. This may warrant your review.”).
   2. Maintain Tutor Autonomy: Ensure tutors are not placed in positions where they must directly report AI use to faculty, allowing the director to handle the institutional communication.

Step 6: Center Review and Feedback

Situation: The writing center continues to face issues with AI use or policy interpretation.

Action:

1. 1. Feedback Loop: Encourage tutors to engage in discussions with the writing center director about challenges encountered during sessions related to AI use.
   2. Adjust Policies: If necessary, update internal writing center policies based on collective experiences, aiming for clearer guidelines that protect both students and academic integrity.
   3. Collaborate across Campus: Center directors and staff should continue collaborating across campus to identify problems and establish guidelines around AI use and integration.

References

Davis, V. (2023, May 11). Welcome to the wild wild west of AI and the higher education institution. WCET Frontiers.https://wcet.wiche.edu/frontiers/2023/05/11/welcome-to-the-wild-wild-west-of-ai-and-the-higher-education-institution/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Diederich, N., & Schroeder, S. (2009). Improving student success through writing center use: A study on first-year composition students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 81–100.

Henning, T. B. (2001, March 15). Theoretical models of tutor talk: How practical are they? Conference on College Composition and Communication, Denver.

Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2013). Motivational scaffolding, politeness, and writing center tutoring. The Writing Center Journal, 33(1), 38–73.

Pelzer, E. (2023). 163: Supporting student writers with empathy and equity. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal. https://www.praxisuwc.com/163-pelzer

Salazar, J. J. (2021). The meaningful and significant impact of writing center visits on college writing performance. The Writing Center Journal, 39(1/2), 55–96.

Shimek, C. (2023). Through the eyes of an introvert: Playing it safe. The Peer Review, 7(1). https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-7-1-featured-issue-reinvestigate-the-commonplaces-in-writing-centers/through-the-eyes-of-an-introvert-playing-it-safe/

Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is “success”? Assessing Writing, 8(2), 110–134.

Towle, B. A. (2024). Accidental outreach and happenstance staffing: A cross-institutional study of writing center support of first-generation college students. The Writing Center Journal, 41(3), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1000