An inquiry-based model to support writing instruction in the context of generative AI

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi41.1920

Keywords:

academic writing, assessment, ChatGPT, critical thinking, gen AI, writing instruction, authenticity

Abstract

Within a university writing instruction context, generative AI (gen AI) is changing how writing is learned, demonstrating positive impact potential through boosting learners’ motivation, automating instructional tasks, and offering instantaneous, personalised feedback. As a result, these are times of unprecedented opportunities and challenges. This is an exploratory qualitative case study on the potential of a four-stage inquiry and academic writing (IAW) model developed by the authors to facilitate educators in two HEIs to work proactively and responsibly with gen AI tools in writing assessments with their students. The study involved 15 educators across Business and Education disciplines interested in supporting students’ academic writing and introduced the IAW model as a practical support to their TLA approaches. Findings indicate educator concerns on gen AI impact on both students’ learning and confidence along with perceived advantages for writing instruction. The study contributes meaningfully to growing conversations about gen AI and writing instruction.

Author Biographies

Roisin Donnelly, Technological University Dublin

Roisin is Head of School of Management, People and Organisations in the Faculty of Business, Technological University Dublin since 2021, where she leads a portfolio of programmes and research at UG, PG and Executive Education levels. Prior, she was Head of Learning Development in the College of Business DIT, Sectoral Project Manager in the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Irish Higher Education, and an academic developer for 15 years in DIT’s Learning, Teaching and Technology Centre. She is co-editor of the Irish Journal of Academic Practice, and a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

Ita Kennelly, National College of Ireland

With a career spanning industry, public and educational sectors, Ita has worked in a number of roles as lecturer, assoc. professor, programme director and academic developer. In her previous role, she was responsible for leading the curriculum design for a number of innovative educational initiatives including a tertiary degree. Ita has several publications including a book, book chapter and research papers and has presented at conferences nationally and internationally. She is a recipient of Research Ireland’s New Foundations funding award. Her research interests include curriculum design, academic writing, critical thinking, reflective practice, creativity and student success.

References

Belkina, M., Daniel, S., Nikolic, S., Haque, R., Lyden, S., Neal, P., Grundy, S., & Hassan, G. M. (2025). Implementing generative AI (GenAI) in higher education: A systematic review of case studies. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 100407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100407

Bonnett, A. (2023, July 6). Teaching Originality: An essential skill in the age of ChatGPT. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/teaching-originality-essential-skill-age-chatgpt

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Chan, P. E., Graham-Day, K. J., Ressa, V. A., Peters, M. T., & Konrad, M. (2014). Beyond Involvement: Promoting student ownership of learning in classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214536039

Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8

Ciampa, K., Wolfe, Z. M., & Bronstein, B. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Transforming digital literacy practices. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 67(3), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1310

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why social inquiry fails and how to make it succeed again. Cambridge University Press.

Grove, J. (2024, March 15). Academic solipsism’ risk from chatbot use. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/academic-solipsism-risk-chatbot-use-warns-university-head

Hesse, F., & Helm, G. (2024). Writing with AI in and beyond teacher education: Exploring subjective training needs of student teachers across five subjects. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 41(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2024.2431747

Higher Education Academy. (2015). Framework for Transforming Assessment in Higher Education. Advance HE.

Hysaj, A., Dean, B. A., & Freeman, M. (2025). Exploring the purposes and uses of generative artificial intelligence tools in academic writing for multicultural students. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(7), 1686–1700. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2488862

Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023). Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT Tool towards ameliorating the education system. Bench Council Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 3(2), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115

Kenny, K. (2023, May 25). An evaluation of ChatGPT in action. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/evaluation-chatgpt-action

Mollick, E. (2024, March 11). AI is much more of an opportunity than a threat to universities. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/ai-much-more-opportunity-threat-universities

Mulaudzi, L. V., & Hamilton, J. (2025). Lecturer’s perspective on the role of AI in personalized learning: Benefits, challenges, and ethical considerations in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 1571–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09615-1

Murdoch, K. (2015). The power of inquiry: Teaching and learning with curiosity, creativity and purpose in the contemporary classroom. Seastar Education.

Naidoo, N. (2023, September 6). Universities, AI and the common good. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/universities-ai-and-common-good

Niemi, H. (2021). AI in learning: Preparing grounds for future learning. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909211038105

Nietzel, M. (2023, March 20). More than half of college students believe using ChatGPT to complete assignments is cheating. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2023/03/20/more-than-half-of-college-students-believe-using-chatgpt-to-complete-assignments-is-cheating/?sh=148ccac518f9

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of Case Study Research. Sage Publication.

Downloads

Published

30-09-2026

How to Cite

Donnelly, R., & Kennelly, I. (2026). An inquiry-based model to support writing instruction in the context of generative AI. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (41). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi41.1920

Issue

No. 41 (2026)

Section

Papers

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).