Abstract

Emerging consensus suggests faculty should teach students to use large language models (LLMs) rather than ban them, but it is not clear that students need detailed AI-related instruction. To investigate, we conducted two studies: Study 1 used survey and focus group methods to assess how such instruction influenced students’ perceptions, while Study 2 used rater evaluation to examine how AI use affected message quality. Study 1 found no meaningful impact on perceptions. Study 2 found that instruction did not affect ratings, but genAI use did—messages composed with LLM assistance received higher evaluations than those without it. We conclude with recommendations for genAI-focused classroom instruction.

Journal
Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Published
2025-05-28
DOI
10.1177/23294906251336719
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (16)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  5. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Show all 16 →
  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  6. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  7. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  8. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  9. Research in the Teaching of English
  10. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  11. Written Communication
Also cites 9 works outside this index ↓
  1. Abbas M. Jam F. A. Khan T. I. (2024). Is it harmful or helpful? Examining the causes and consequences of gene…
  2. Blandin A. Bick A. Deming D. (2024). The rapid adoption of Generative AI. SSRN 4965142. https://doi.org/10.21…
  3. Dell’Acqua F. McFowland E.III Mollick E. R. Lifshitz-Assaf H. Kellogg K. Rajendran S. Krayer L. Candelon F. L…
  4. Gerlich M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. …
  5. Ibrahim H. Liu F. Asim R. Battu B. Benabderrahmane S. Alhafni B. Adnan W. Alhanai T. AlShebli B. Baghdadi R. …
  6. Jick T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Scien…
  7. Kaldaras L. Akaeze H. O. Reckase M. D. (2024). Developing valid assessments in the era of generative artifici…
  8. Lee H. P. H. Sarkar A. Tankelevitch L. Drosos I. Rintel S. Banks R. Wilson N. (2025). The impact of generativ…
  9. Mahapatra S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention…
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network →