The impact of generative ai on elementary and high school students' expression in creative writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14712/25337890.5159Keywords:
generative artificial intelligence, creative writing, dialogic authorship, AI in educationAbstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, is rapidly becoming a common tool in creative writing and educational settings. However, we still know relatively little about how AI influences students' creativity and their sense of authorship. This study explores how primary and secondary school students (N = 449, aged 13–19) engaged with generative AI during creative writing workshops. The findings show that most students combined their own writing with AI support: only 3.8% relied entirely on generated content, while 68.4% adopted a balanced approach. The highest level of AI engagement was observed among students working in groups. Qualitative analysis revealed that students particularly appreciated the inspiration, text structuring, and consultation possibilities offered by AI. At the same time, uncertainty regarding authorship and a tendency to outsource creative effort to AI were also noted. The study highlights the importance of metacognitive support in both maximizing the benefits and mitigating the risks of using AI in creative writing. In the discussion, we propose pedagogical strategies that can help students view AI as a tool rather than a replacement for their own creativity.
References
Akverdi, C., & Baykal, G. E. (2024). Generative AI tools in design fields: Opportunities and challenges in the ideation process. NordiCHI '24 Adjunct: Adjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 29, 1–5. https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.cuni.cz/10.1145/3677045.3685445
Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Dialogos.
Bai, S., Gonda, D. E., & Hew, K. F. (2024). Write-curate-verify: A case study of leveraging generative AI for scenario writing in scenario-based learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024.3378306
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author (S. Heath, Trans.). In Image, music, text (pp. 142–148). Fontana.
Boden, M. (2009). Creativity in a nutshell. Think, 5, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147717560000230X
Epstein, Z., & Hertzmann, A. (2023). Art and the science of generative AI. Science, 380(6650), 1110–1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4451
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Gil Ruiz, P., & García Arnao, J. J. (2024). Trazos digitales: Efecto de la inteligencia artificial en el proceso creativo. Encuentros: Revista de Ciencias Humanas, Teoría Social y Pensamiento Crítico, 22, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13362804
Inie, N., Falk, J., & Tanimoto, S. (2023). Designing participatory AI: Creative professionals’ worries and expectations about generative AI. Proceedings of the ACM Conference, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585657
Ji, J. (2024). Demystify ChatGPT: Anthropomorphism around generative AI. Grace, 2(1). https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/grace/article/view/3222/1622
Kahila, J., Vartiainen, H., Tedre, M., Arkko, E., Lin, A., Pope, N., Jormanainen, I., & Valtonen, T. (2024). Pedagogical framework for cultivating children's data agency and creative abilities in the age of AI. Informatics in Education, 23(2), 323–360. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2024.15
Kim, K., Heo, J., & Jeong, S. (2021). Tool or partner: The designer’s perception of an AI-style generating service. In Artificial intelligence in HCI: Vol. 12797. Proceedings of the Second International Conference AI-HCI 2021 as part of HCII 2021 (pp. 241–259). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77772-2_16
Lee, J., Hicke, Y., Yu, R., Brooks, C., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2024). The life cycle of large language models in education: A framework for understanding sources of bias. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55, 1982–2002. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13505
Lucas, B. (2016). A five-dimensional model of creativity and its assessment in schools. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209206
Urban, M., Děchtěrenko, F., Lukavský, J., Hrabalová, V., Švácha, F., Brom, C., & Urban, K. (2024). ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study. Computers & Education, 215, 105031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105031
Richter, M. (2025). Formulace pravidel pro využívání AI ve výuce sociálněvědních oborů. Civilia, 15(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.5507/civ.2025.001
Si, C., Yang, D., & Hashimoto, T. (2024). Can LLMs generate novel research ideas? A large-scale human study with 100+ NLP researchers. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04109v1
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 5998–6008). arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762
