In my 12th-grade journalism three class, students leverage transcription apps, ChatGPT, and AI tools to streamline their workflow, though these innovations spark concerns about originality. The course has evolved from beginner and intermediate levels to an advanced offering, with some students under my guidance for over three years, fostering significant growth.

My goal is to equip them to write for the school newspaper, a student-led publication, while tackling the challenge of balancing AI’s benefits with preserving authenticity and originality in their work.

Each article requires an original photo, highlighting multimedia’s role. In 2024/2025, our school has embraced a pro-AI stance, reinforced by guest speakers from the AI platform Brisk, who tout its benefits—AI now aids lesson planning, student feedback, and writing enhancement.

Yet, this connects to a core problem: journalism thrives on authenticity, process, and originality, and while AI tools accelerate workflows, they raise a tension—do they bolster students’ writing development or foster over-reliance, potentially stunting their growth as writers?

Editors emphasize process and authenticity, while students are split—some see AI as a revision enhancer, others fear it erodes originality, sparking a debate over whether it boosts or supplants writing skills. This ties to a core problem: journalism hinges on credibility, transparency, and originality, prompting the question—how much AI is too much before it crosses from assistance to dependence? This divide reflects a broader educational challenge: can we integrate AI into journalism without sacrificing its integrity?

I’ve chosen a quantitative approach to measure AI trends in writing and revision via structured surveys, statistically comparing perceptions between student editors and writers, offering objective data on AI’s impact on journalism to guide this process.

The data I collected enabled me to associate or relate variables for a group of individuals. or The data I collected enabled me to describe trends for a population by establishing the tendency of responses from individuals.  

During the design of my questionnaire, I followed the suggestions described by Cohen et al. (2017). When I wrote questions, I … 

1. wrote clearly;

2. used unambiguous words;

3. kept my questions short and simple;

4. avoided leading questions that suggested a response;

5. avoided complex (wordy) questions;

6. avoided the use of negatives and double negatives;

7. made sure that socially desirable behaviors were overstated and socially undesirable statements were understated;

8. wrote difficult questions in the middle of my questionnaire;

9. wrote high interest questions to encourage completion;

10. followed this question sequence: factual, closed, open factual questions;

11. collected demographic information to allow readers of my paper to gauge the external validity of the reported results and conclusions;

12. demographic data (age, sex, gender, income level, race, employment, location, homeownership, and level of education; years of experience (grade level, age, career))

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge.

• Understanding whether AI enhances or hinders student writing independence.

• Determining if AI contributes to journalistic integrity or creates a formulaic writing process.

• Assessing editorial concerns about AI’s impact on authenticity.

  
  

I am an educator, journalist, and researcher examining how high school student journalists perceive and engage with AI-generated content.

I have taught and mentored these student journalists for three years, giving me unique insight into their growth and their evolving relationship with AI in journalism.

• 30 students

Age Range

• 17 to 18 years old

Genders

• Male and female

Birthplace

• 90% were born in a particular city in Colombia

• 10% may have been born outside of this particular city, likely in other Colombian cities or abroad

Socioeconomic Background

• Predominantly upper to middle class

• Families typically have access to private education and international travel

• Many students have parents who are professionals, business owners, or work in multinational companies

Language Proficiency

• Bilingual (Spanish and English)

• Majority have received formal education in both languages since early childhood

• Some may demonstrate stronger proficiency in either Spanish or English, depending on their academic track and home environment

Maximal Variation Sampling, as Creswell (2014) notes, aims to “present multiple perspectives of individuals to represent the complexity of our world” (p. 205) by sampling based on a specific trait, in this case editors and writers. The process was completed before data collection begins.

In contrast, Convenience Sampling involves selecting participants who are willing and available to be studied (Creswell, 2014, p. 144), prioritizing ease of access. The participants in my study were willing and available. However, a cautionary note applies to Convenience Sampling: researchers cannot generalize findings, as the sample may not represent the broader population.

• Students followed one of three academic pathways: Art of Fiction, AP, or Journalism

• Those in this study specifically chose the journalism route since 10th grade, demonstrating a strong interest in writing, media ethics, and reporting

• Journalism courses emphasized investigative reporting, multimedia storytelling, and editorial leadership

School Background

• Many students have attended The Columbus School since early childhood

• They come from a structured bilingual education environment with a curriculum that integrates English and Spanish fluency

• The school promotes critical thinking, global awareness, and leadership development

• Setting: A school in the country of Colombia.

• Located in an urban, private school environment with modern facilities and access to digital journalism tools

Section 1: Demographic Information

1. What is your role in the school newspaper?

   • ☐ Writer

   • ☐ Editor

2. How many years have you participated in journalism?

   • ☐ 1 year

   • ☐ 2 years

   • ☐ 3+ years

3. How frequently do you use AI tools (Grammarly, ChatGPT, Google Docs AI) for writing or editing?

   • ☐ Never

   • ☐ Rarely (1-2 times a month)

   • ☐ Sometimes (1-2 times a week)

   • ☐ Frequently (Almost every time I write/edit)

4. How do you primarily use AI tools in journalism? (Select all that apply)

   • ☐ Brainstorming ideas

   • ☐ Generating article outlines

   • ☐ Writing entire paragraphs

   • ☐ Grammar and style improvement

   • ☐ Rewording and refining sentences

   • ☐ I do not use AI for journalism

5. How often do you revise AI-generated text before submitting?

   • ☐ Never, I use AI suggestions as they are

   • ☐ Occasionally, I make minor edits

   • ☐ Often, I significantly change AI-generated text

   • ☐ Always, I only use AI for ideas, not direct wording

6. How helpful do you find AI tools in improving your writing?

   • ☐ Not helpful at all

   • ☐ Slightly helpful

   • ☐ Somewhat helpful

   • ☐ Very helpful

   • ☐ Essential for my writing process

7. In your opinion, how does AI-generated writing compare to human writing in quality?

   • ☐ AI writing is much lower quality

   • ☐ AI writing is slightly lower quality

   • ☐ AI and human writing are about the same

   • ☐ AI writing is slightly better than human writing

   • ☐ AI writing is much better than human writing

8. Do you believe AI tools enhance or hinder originality in student journalism?

   • ☐ Strongly enhance originality

   • ☐ Somewhat enhance originality

   • ☐ No impact on originality

   • ☐ Somewhat hinder originality

   • ☐ Strongly hinder originality

9. AI-generated text is:

   • ☐ More engaging than human writing

   • ☐ Equally engaging as human writing

   • ☐ Less engaging than human writing

10. Do you think AI-generated articles should be clearly labeled as AI-assisted?

• ☐ Yes, always

• ☐ Only if AI significantly contributed to the content

• ☐ No, it doesn’t matter

11. To what extent do you worry that AI could reduce journalistic credibility?

• ☐ Not at all

• ☐ Slightly concerned

• ☐ Somewhat concerned

• ☐ Very concerned

12. Which ethical concerns about AI in journalism do you find most important? (Select all that apply)

• ☐ Plagiarism

• ☐ Misinformation & accuracy issues

• ☐ Bias in AI-generated content

• ☐ Over-reliance on AI instead of skill development

• ☐ Lack of transparency in AI-assisted reporting

• ☐ I have no ethical concerns about AI in journalism

13. Should AI tools be restricted in high school journalism?

• ☐ Yes, AI should be banned

• ☐ AI should only be used for editing, not content generation

• ☐ AI should be used freely but with guidelines

• ☐ No restrictions—AI should be fully integrated

14. In your opinion, what is the biggest risk AI poses to journalism?

• ☐ Loss of originality in writing

• ☐ Readers losing trust in journalistic credibility

• ☐ Writers becoming too dependent on AI

• ☐ AI spreading misinformation or bias

• ☐ AI doesn’t pose a serious risk to journalism

15. How do you think AI will impact future journalism careers?

• ☐ AI will replace many journalism jobs

• ☐ AI will assist but not replace journalists

• ☐ AI won’t significantly change journalism careers

• ☐ AI will create new opportunities for journalists

16. If given the choice, would you prefer to write and edit without AI tools?

• ☐ Yes, I prefer traditional journalism

• ☐ No, I believe AI improves the process

• ☐ Unsure

17. What AI policy should schools adopt for journalism?

• ☐ Strict AI bans to maintain originality

• ☐ AI should only assist in grammar & style, not content

• ☐ AI should be integrated as a learning tool

• ☐ AI should be fully embraced as part of journalism education

Findings reveal that while AI tools like Grammarly and ChatGPT are widely used for brainstorming (91.4%) and grammar improvement (88.6%), students frequently revise AI-generated text to preserve authenticity, with 48.6% using AI solely for ideas. Editors favor AI for editing tasks (92.3% use it for grammar), while writers apply it more broadly (e.g., 95.5% for brainstorming). A majority (64.3%) believe AI hinders originality, and ethical concerns—particularly plagiarism (62.9%), misinformation (60%), and over-reliance (57.1%)—are prevalent, with editors emphasizing transparency (61.5%) more than writers (45.5%). Regarding future careers, 48.5% see AI as assistive, though 36.4% fear job replacement, with editors (50%) more concerned than writers (28.6%). These findings highlight the tension between AI’s efficiency and journalism’s core values of credibility, transparency, and originality.

The study proposes actionable guidelines for ethical AI integration in journalism education, advocating for policies that balance technological innovation with skill development to prepare students for an AI-influenced media landscape.

• Efficiency: Pivot tables quickly summarize large datasets, saving time compared to manual calculations or sorting.

• Flexibility: Users can easily rearrange data by dragging fields into rows, columns, or filters, adapting the view to different needs.

• Automation: They automatically compute sums, averages, counts, or other metrics without requiring formulas.

• Insightful Analysis: They help reveal trends, patterns, or outliers by organizing data into meaningful groups.

  • Do students feel AI helps or harms originality?

  • What are the biggest ethical concerns (plagiarism, misinformation, bias)?

  • Is there a divide between students who use AI often vs. rarely?

• User-Friendly: No advanced technical skills are needed; most spreadsheet software provides intuitive drag-and-drop interfaces.

• Customizable: Options like filters, sorting, and formatting allow tailored presentations of data.

Among editors, 50% use AI tools “Sometimes” (1-2 times a week), making this the most common frequency. One-third (33%) use AI tools “Rarely” (1-2 times a month), and 17% use them “Frequently” (almost every time). This indicates that editors tend to use AI tools on a semi-regular basis, with a preference for occasional use rather than constant reliance.

For writers, the responses are evenly distributed across the three frequency categories, with 33% in each: “Frequently,” “Rarely,” and “Sometimes.” This even split suggests that writers have a wide range of habits when it comes to using AI tools, with some integrating them heavily into their workflow, while others use them sporadically or minimally.

For writers, 33% believe AI tools “Somewhat hinder originality,” and 29% think they “Strongly hinder originality,” totaling 62% who see a negative impact. On the positive side, 19% believe AI tools “Somewhat enhance originality,” and 5% think they “Strongly enhance originality,” totaling 24% with a positive view. Additionally, 14% of writers believe AI tools have “No impact on originality.” Like editors, the majority of writers (62%) perceive AI tools as hindering originality, though slightly less than editors.

The survey tracks AI tool use (Grammarly, ChatGPT, Google Docs AI) across four tasks: Brainstorming Ideas, Generating Outlines, Grammar Improvement, and Sentence Refining, yielding 132 data points.

Editors likely favor AI for Grammar Improvement (17% “Frequently,” 50% “Sometimes,” 33% “Rarely”), showing caution, especially in creative tasks like Brainstorming and Outlining, and prioritizing originality.

Writers exhibit broader use (33% “Frequently,” 33% “Sometimes,” 33% “Rarely”), leveraging AI heavily for Brainstorming, Outlining, and Refining, reflecting their drafting role.

Editors are evenly split between optimism (AI as an assistant) and pessimism (AI replacing jobs). None believe AI will create new opportunities or leave journalism unchanged, showing a polarized view focused on AI’s direct impact on existing roles.

Writers lean slightly more toward AI assisting rather than replacing (47.6% vs. 28.6%), but they’re less concerned about replacement than editors. They’re also the only group to see AI as creating new opportunities (4.8%) or having minimal impact (19.0%), indicating a broader range of perspectives.

1. Since less experienced students are more skeptical about AI’s usefulness, training on ethical AI use and best practices for integration could help them develop confidence in using these tools effectively.

As an educator, I have the opportunity to equip students with AI literacy, preparing them to navigate an evolving media landscape while maintaining credibility in their reporting.

Understanding AI’s impact on writing, ethics, and media literacy is essential for shaping responsible journalists who can adapt to technological advancements.

Ultimately, this study is about more than just AI—it’s about preserving the integrity of journalism and ensuring that the next generation of reporters can use technology to enhance, rather than replace, their voices.

Editors:

• Plagiarism: 10 (76.9%)

• Misinformation/accuracy: 9 (69.2%)

• Over-reliance: 8 (61.5%)

• Transparency: 8 (61.5%)

• Bias: 7 (53.8%)

Writers:

• Plagiarism: 12 (54.5%)

• Misinformation/accuracy: 12 (54.5%)

• Over-reliance: 12 (54.5%)

• Transparency: 10 (45.5%)

• Bias: 8 (36.4%)

• No concerns: 3 (13.6%)

Comparison: Editors cite more concerns per person and prioritize plagiarism (76.9% vs. 54.5%) and transparency (61.5% vs. 45.5%), while writers spread concerns more evenly. Only writers report “no concerns,” suggesting some are less troubled by AI’s role.

Among editors, 75% find AI tools “Very helpful,” which is a significant portion. None of the editors consider AI tools “Essential,” and a small percentage (17%) find them “Slightly helpful.” This suggests that editors generally value AI tools highly but do not see them as critical to their process.

For writers, 57% find AI tools “Very helpful,” which is slightly lower than the editors’ percentage but still a majority. Notably, 10% of writers find AI tools “Essential,” which is higher than editors (0%). Additionally, 24% of writers find AI tools “Somewhat helpful,” a higher percentage than editors (8%), indicating a bit more variability in how writers perceive the usefulness of AI tools.