This article reports on my action research study exploring the integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into creative writing pedagogy at higher education level. Over twelve months, I conducted six pedagogical experiments across three London institutions, engaging fifty-two students in exploring AI’s functional dimensions: as ideation catalyst, collaborative tool, scaffolding mechanism, editorial assistant, research facilitator and assessment instrument. Using a critical realist framework, I examine what emerged from this systematic investigation: GenAI demonstrates clear affordances in particular contexts (research, translation, ideation generation) but significant limitations in others (editorial feedback, assessment, true creative collaboration). Students across all cohorts showed sophisticated critical awareness of AI’s training processes and ethical implications, and most remained cautious about deploying AI as a creative tool. The article argues that engaging with GenAI’s weaknesses might be its greatest pedagogical strength.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ray Grewel (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: