Generative AI is great at writing to a script. 

I have a waking nightmare, of sorts, involving AI and email: someone writes to me by prompting an AI system with a topic. I feel I need to reply, but I’m not that engaged with that correspondent, so I ask an AI system to draft a response. The correspondent has a mandate to keep in touch with me, so he asks an AI system to draft a response to my response. And so on. All my tedious correspondence was managed with a few clicks. But then I realize, what’s the point? When does communication become a ritualized feedback loop that simultaneously meets every expectation and means nothing at all?  

Thinking of how to assess student learning can feel like this when I open a piece of student work that has the hallmarks of being produced by AI, used by someone who isn’t as skilled at prompting it. I asked for your opinion on the reading, and I got a paragraph of vacuous generalities gussied up with overly formal wording for the circumstances. Again, what’s the point? 

The learner could correctly say that I asked for an opinion on a subject, and since they provided an opinion on that subject, the standard was met. And I could say I asked for your opinion, which is not what I got. As the character Captain said in the film Cool Hand Luke, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” 

Studies of student use of AI are just starting to emerge and generally find that students are engaged with the technology. One survey found that almost 65 percent of students have used or plan to use AI in their studies, even while they are concerned about whether the tools are trustworthy (Deschenes and McMahon 2024). Usage varies across disciplines, with engineering students showing higher adoption rates compared to sports science students (Saito 2024). For students who may struggle with language as a part of doing academic work, AI can be helpful. International undergraduate students reported that they use AI for outlines, summaries, and general reports, citing benefits such as improved understanding and idea generation (Park et al. 2024).   

Overall, the real danger is more than AI in education itself. Perhaps it lies in replacing human understanding and communication with convenience. Communication becomes performative and makes learning a matter of compliance. This cuts out the essential core of education: meaningful engagement that joins critical thinking to engender authentic intellectual growth. Technology can be a bridge, but should not be a barrier to genuine human connection, or, indeed, what’s the point? 

References 

Deschenes, Amy, and Meg McMahon. 2024. “A Survey on Student Use of Generative AI Chatbots for Academic Research.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 19 (2): 2-22. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30512. 

Park, Jung-eun, Mijung Jang, Sunkyung Oh. 2024.“Analysis of the Experience of Using Generative AI and the Needs of Writing Education of Foreign Undergraduates.” Korean Journal of General Education 18(1): 185-199. https://doi.org/10.46392/kjge.2024.18.1.185.    

Saito, Nagayuki. 2024. “Analysis of Trends in the Use of Generative AI for Learning by Attributes and Characteristics of University Students.” The Asian Conference on Education & International Development 2024 Official Conference Proceedings. 1027-1037. https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2189-101X.2024.83. 

Note: Park, Jang, and Oh (2024) was originally published in Korean, and was read in a machine-translated version completed by Google Translate. 

About the Author 

Amanda Sturgill, Associate Professor of Journalism at Elon University, is a 2024-2026 CEL Scholar focusing on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and engaged learning in higher education. Connect with her at asturgil@elon.edu.  

How to Cite This Post 

Sturgill, Amanda. 2025. “When Education Becomes Performative, Learning Suffers.” Center for Engaged Learning (Blog). Elon University, February (21), 2025. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/when-education-becomes-performative-learning-suffers.