1. Overview

Type of Institution:	Four year university
Course Level & Title:	Rhetoric and Writing Studies; Business Writing (RWS290)
Course type(s) (asynchronous, synchronous, online, hybrid):	In person; online
Delivery platform(s):	Online or in-person

Relevant OWI Principles & Tenets

Principle 1: Online literacy instruction should be universally accessible and inclusive.

• Your AI activity helps ensure that all students, regardless of their familiarity with AI, develop critical thinking skills around its use in writing. 

Principle 4: Online literacy instruction should encourage student agency and foster metacognition about writing.

• Your approach asks students to reflect on AI-generated text, consider rhetorical effectiveness, and think critically about their role as writers. 

Principle 5: Online literacy instruction should support ethical digital communication and information literacy.

• Your activity directly engages students in evaluating AI content, fostering awareness of its limitations and ethical considerations in business writing. 

Tenet: Online literacy instruction should support multimodal composition and digital rhetoric.

• Your practice involves analyzing AI-generated content, which is a key aspect of digital rhetoric and multimodal literacy in online spaces.

Hardware and Software Requirements

• AI Text Generators: ChatGPT, Grammarly, Quillbot, or similar tools.
• Annotation Tools: Google Docs, Microsoft Word, Hypothesis, or paper-based annotation.
• Discussion Platforms: In-person discussions, LMS discussion boards, or tools like Padlet.

[1] As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into business communication, it is essential for students to develop critical thinking skills around its use. My effective practice engages students in rhetorical analysis of AI-generated business writing, prompting them to assess the effectiveness of AI-generated content through the lens of ethos, pathos, and logos. Rather than taking an avoidance-based approach to AI, this practice encourages students to actively interrogate AI’s capabilities and limitations, positioning them as critical decision-makers in their writing process.

[2] This practice fits within my larger teaching philosophy, which emphasizes critical digital literacy and student agency in online and hybrid learning environments. In my business writing courses, students frequently engage with digital tools, and this AI-focused activity helps them navigate the evolving role of technology in professional communication. By fostering metacognitive reflection and ethical awareness, this practice prepares students to make informed decisions about AI’s role in their future careers as business professionals and communicators.

[3] This practice allows me to better engage students in critical discussions about AI’s role in business communication by moving beyond passive or avoidance-based approaches. By requiring students to analyze AI-generated content using rhetorical strategies, they develop a more nuanced understanding of both AI’s capabilities and its limitations. This approach fosters deeper engagement with business writing principles, encouraging students to think critically rather than relying on AI-generated content at face value.

[4] One of the primary challenges this practice addresses is students’ tendency to either over-rely on AI or dismiss it entirely. Many students initially perceive AI as either an infallible writing tool or as something to be avoided due to concerns about academic integrity. By guiding them through a structured rhetorical analysis, this practice helps students see AI as a tool that requires thoughtful human intervention.

[5] This practice aligns with existing scholarship on AI in writing instruction, digital literacy, and online literacy pedagogy. Research suggests that AI can serve as a valuable tool in writing education when used critically rather than passively (Adams & Chuah, 2022). However, much of the existing discourse frames AI as something to be avoided or circumvented in academic spaces rather than leveraged as a means for deeper engagement (Roe et al., 2023). By incorporating AI-generated text into rhetorical analysis, this practice moves beyond avoidance strategies and encourages students to critically evaluate digital writing tools.

[6] While no research has been conducted on this particular pedagogical activity, student responses in class indicate that this practice increases their awareness of AI’s rhetorical shortcomings, such as a lack of true audience awareness or overly generic language. Many students report feeling more confident in their ability to critique AI-generated text and make informed decisions about when and how to use AI effectively in their writing. This metacognitive reflection not only enhances their writing skills but also prepares them for ethical decision-making in professional settings where AI tools are becoming increasingly prevalent.

2. Research and Supporting Literature

[7] Studies in business communication pedagogy advocate for case-based and scenario-based writing tasks that require critical and creative thinking (AlAfnan et al., 2023). This practice builds on that approach by engaging students in evaluating AI’s rhetorical effectiveness and making strategic revisions to enhance audience awareness and credibility. Research in Online Literacy Instruction (OLI) also highlights the importance of fostering student agency and metacognition in digital writing spaces (Warnock, 2009), both of which are core to this approach.

[8] Additionally, this practice supports ethical digital literacy, an emerging focus in online writing research. Scholars argue that digital tools, including AI, must be incorporated into writing instruction with an emphasis on critical analysis, ethical considerations, and rhetorical awareness (Selfe & Hawisher, 2004). This aligns with the OLI Principles of fostering student agency, supporting multimodal digital literacy, and encouraging ethical communication in online spaces (GSOLE, 2024).

[9] By drawing on these frameworks, this practice provides a structured way for students to critically engage with AI, reinforcing the importance of rhetorical decision-making in online and professional writing contexts.

3. Implementation

[10] This effective practice involves guiding students through a structured rhetorical analysis of AI-generated business writing to foster critical thinking and digital literacy. The activity unfolds in several stages, incorporating AI tools, class discussions, and student reflections. Below is a step-by-step guide to implementing this practice.

Step 1: Introduction to AI and Writing Assignment

[11] Begin by discussing AI’s role in writing, addressing both its potential and limitations. I tend to share examples of DALL-E bias and provide examples of AI-generated writing (e.g., emails, reports, proposals).

[12] Engage students in a discussion about their perceptions of AI—do they see it as a useful tool, a threat to originality, or something else?

[13] In this first step, you should also introduce your assignment sheet as a handout (see Figure 1).

Step 2: Generating AI-Based Responses

[14] Have students input assignment prompts from their assignment sheet into an AI text generator such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or another AI-powered writing assistant.

[15] Ask students to copy and save both the AI-generated response and the original prompt for analysis.

• Alternative Tools: If AI-based writing tools are unavailable, instructors can provide pre-generated AI texts for students to analyze.

[16] If completing in a class setting, break students into groups and have each student complete a different prompt. For example, in the Assignment Sheet above, students had seven prompts to choose from: three good news letter prompts, three bad news letter prompts, and one persuasive speech prompt. See Figure 2 for an example of AI-generated output in response to the Persuasive Letter prompt. 

Step 3: Rhetorical Analysis Using Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

[17] Introduce or review the rhetorical appeals:

• Ethos (credibility): Does the AI-generated response establish credibility?

• Pathos (emotion): Does the response appeal to emotions appropriately?
  

• Logos (logic): Is the argument structured logically and supported with relevant evidence?
  

[18] Have students annotate the AI-generated response, marking areas where ethos, pathos, and logos are strong or weak.

[19] Facilitate a small group or class-wide discussion where students compare their analyses. For example, many students will immediately notice that the letter appears to have a good fact for logos: “According to the American College Health Association, over 60% of college students experience overwhelming anxiety, and nearly 40% struggle with depression.” However, when students are asked to investigate this claim they find that not only was this not found on the American College Health Association, but the source that does discuss 60% of college students experiencing anxiety does not discuss anything about depression. From here, we can begin reflecting with students.

Step 4: Student Reflections and Revisions

[20] Ask students to reflect on the AI-generated response by answering:

• What works well in this response?

• What is missing, unclear, or ineffective?

• How would you revise or improve this response?

[21] Students then rewrite or refine the AI-generated text to make it more rhetorically effective.

[22] Collect qualitative feedback from students about their experience with the activity.

[23] By asking students to reflect on their work with AI, we are deepening their understanding of why AI and writing should be a critical thinking task. This process encourages students to engage in metacognition, allowing them to analyze not just what AI produces but how and why certain rhetorical choices are effective or ineffective. By actively revising AI-generated text, students develop a stronger sense of audience awareness, argumentation, and clarity—skills that are essential for both traditional and digital literacy. Additionally, gathering qualitative feedback provides insight into students’ perceptions of AI as a writing tool, helping educators refine their instructional approaches and better integrate AI into the learning process in a way that fosters critical engagement rather than passive reliance.

Step 5: Class Discussion and Takeaways

[24] Discuss key findings: Where does AI writing fall short? When is it most effective?

[25] Guide students in reflecting on their role as human writers and decision-makers when using AI tools.

[26] Connect these insights to broader discussions about digital literacy, business ethics, and workplace communication.

[27] In our class discussion, we will analyze the key findings from our AI writing exercises, focusing on both its limitations and strengths. One of the most important takeaways is understanding where AI-generated writing falls short—whether in tone, depth of critical thinking, or the ability to adapt language to specific audiences and contexts. While AI can efficiently generate content, summarize information, and provide structure, it often struggles with nuance, originality, and ethical considerations, particularly in business and professional settings. As writers and decision-makers, we must critically evaluate AI’s outputs, refining and shaping them to align with our goals and ethical standards. This discussion extends beyond writing alone; it connects to larger conversations about digital literacy, business ethics, and workplace communication. In business writing, for example, professionals must assess AI-generated content for clarity, accuracy, and appropriateness while ensuring that their messaging aligns with company values and audience expectations. By reflecting on our role in this process, we develop a deeper awareness of how AI can be used responsibly and effectively, rather than as a substitute for human judgment and expertise.

[28] Figure 3 includes some examples of what students have learned or said about AI in the assignments generated content discussed earlier.

4. Conclusion

Student Outcomes and Examples 

• Many students recognize that AI-generated texts often lack specificity, originality, or true audience awareness.
• Students report increased confidence in evaluating AI-generated writing rather than relying on it uncritically.
• Example Outcome: A student revises an AI-generated email to include stronger audience awareness, more precise language, and a clearer call to action.

[29] In integrating AI discussions into business writing curricula, my goal is not to indoctrinate students into a singular perspective but to equip them with the critical engagement skills necessary for navigating AI-integrated workplaces. Rather than promoting blind adoption or outright rejection, I encourage students to critically analyze AI-generated content—examining its strengths, weaknesses, and ethical implications. By applying rhetorical strategies such as ethos, pathos, and logos, students learn to assess AI output with a discerning eye, considering credibility, emotional impact, and logical coherence. This approach ensures that students see AI as a tool that can enhance, but not replace, human writing and decision-making. My role is to facilitate exploration rather than dictate what AI use is “worthy”; instead, I challenge students to develop their own informed perspectives through discussion, experimentation, and reflection. At the same time, I establish clear plagiarism boundaries aligned with institutional policies and ethical considerations, prompting students to critically reflect on AI’s role in both academic integrity and professional communication. This method fosters a learning environment where students become active participants in shaping their relationship with AI, rather than passive recipients of predetermined conclusions.

[30] What I appreciate most about this approach is that it preserves academic freedom while ensuring students engage critically with AI’s implications. Instructors who prefer not to allow AI in their classrooms can still use this activity to reinforce critical thinking skills, helping students recognize the limitations of AI-generated writing while making it clear that such work is not permitted. This also demonstrates an instructor’s ability to identify AI-generated content, reinforcing accountability. For those who choose to integrate AI, this activity provides a structured way to guide students in responsible use—whether that means using AI for brainstorming, outlining, or generating drafts that they must refine and personalize. Regardless of one’s stance on AI, this approach empowers educators to maintain control over their pedagogy while equipping students with the analytical skills needed to navigate AI in academic and professional contexts.

Alternative Approaches

• If AI tools are not accessible, instructors can provide pre-written AI-generated samples.
• For asynchronous courses, students can engage with each step of the activity—generating AI responses, conducting rhetorical analysis, and posting reflections—through discussion forums or collaborative tools like Google Docs.

[31] Instructors teaching asynchronously can prompt students to:

• Upload AI-generated letters to a shared discussion thread
• Comment on peers’ rhetorical analysis (focused on ethos, pathos, and logos)
• Post brief reflections about what they learned and how they might revise the AI draft.

[32] This approach ensures that the activity remains interactive and reflective even without live discussions, supporting student agency in asynchronous online spaces. The rhetorical analysis framework can also be adapted to other types of digital writing, such as social media posts, automated responses, or algorithmically generated news articles.

[33] If AI tools are not readily accessible to students, instructors can still facilitate meaningful engagement with AI-generated writing by providing pre-written samples. By analyzing these examples, students can explore AI’s patterns, strengths, and limitations without needing direct access to AI tools themselves. This approach ensures that all students—regardless of their technological access—can critically engage with AI-generated content. Instructors can curate examples that illustrate common issues such as lack of nuance, formulaic structure, or ethical concerns, guiding students through a structured analysis that strengthens their ability to assess digital writing. This method maintains inclusivity while fostering critical thinking skills that apply to AI-integrated workplaces and academic settings alike.

[34] For asynchronous courses, discussion forums provide a space for students to engage with AI-generated texts and share their analyses. By posting AI-generated examples alongside their evaluations, students can learn from one another’s critiques, identifying recurring patterns and discussing ethical concerns in a collaborative setting. Additionally, the rhetorical analysis framework used for AI-generated business writing can be adapted to other forms of digital communication, such as social media posts, automated customer service responses, or algorithmically generated news articles. This flexibility allows instructors to tailor AI discussions to a wide range of writing contexts, helping students develop a critical lens for evaluating digital communication in both academic and professional environments.