Is writing in social studies dead? Teaching writing in the age of AI

Love the topic - Becca Horowitz 

I sure hope it's not dead. Honestly as teachers and as a profession I think we're behind the curve - not quite sure what to do about it. 

I feel like I can spot when my students are using AI most of the time... but then there are other times that are tricky. There are times that I don't want to accuse a student of cheating, even if I suspect it. There are other times that it is blatant. 

I think probably where we're going is learning how to teach students how to use AI responsibly and ethically. It's likely a foregone conclusion that they are going to use it... Heck, I use it. So maybe where we're headed is thinking up lessons and instruction that model that ethical use - assisting with brainstorming, proofreading, cleaning up editing, as a thesaurus or reference, and so forth. 

Adam Esrig I think you're right that the field will need to train students to use AI as a tool in our thinking, not a replacement for thinking. And I'm curious how student access to AI will shape teacher planning and assessment. That's the part that gets the teacher nerd in me fired up. How can we be creative with our checks for understanding to really get at what students know and think?

I also love this topic.  It is such a challenge.  I think the answer may be yes but I still have students write.  

Eric Schulz I have this impulse too, and I think it's interesting to explore our 'why' for continuing to teach writing. What makes it worth the challenge for you?

If we approach our courses like historians, which I do,  then writing is the keystone.  What good are the skills and content if you can not create arguments and support them with reasoning and evidence? 

In your blog post you certainly come down on the side of "writing has a point and we should do it", and I doubt many here will disagree, so the question really comes down to how. I'm firmly in the camp that thinks we should handle AI like we used to handle calculators: the students need to learn how to do the skill themselves before they can know how to actually use the tool that makes the skill redundant (or at least easier).

By this I mean: we need to teach writing, by hand, to children (including, I'd argue, penmanship). In the same way we make use of a spiral skill progression to teach, say, contextualization over the course of a year, we must progress students from writing short ideas to longer, more developed arguments. In parallel, we must also progress students from writing by hand to writing with a word processor to, yes, even writing with a LLM as a tool. This isn't something we do in a single semester or single year. This is something we start in pre-K and build through university.

I know I tend to be pretty lofty with my goals. But this isn't a problem that can be solved by individual teachers operating in isolation; we need a structural shift to address it.

I'll also throw in a couple of resources related to the subject that I recommend:

• Volume 47 of Teaching History: A Journal of Methods is focused on the "unessay", a somewhat nebulous term for assignments, projects, and assessments of historical thinking that do not require essay-writing. The editor's introduction is here.
• Kelsey Rice's "ChatGPT and World History Essays" from Vol. 49 of the same journal looks at having ChatGPT write history essays and then tasking students with assessing the generated text.

Christopher Barber thanks for sharing your perspective and these resources. I love the idea of an "unessay" (and I think it would appeal to students). That reminds me of some ideas our team pulled together to think differently about writing tasks with AI in the Writing Process. I think designing prompts that require students' humanity, identity, and experiences to answer is a really interesting challenge.

You're spot-on that we need system-level approaches to teaching in this context, from redesigning assessments to developing appropriate policies to equipping teachers will the training to teach AI literacy, there will need to be big shifts. The moment we're in feels like both/and. Teachers are figuring out how to adapt in real time, and advocating for structural shifts. We'd love to keep the conversation going about what you're each trying.

Thank you for this piece. It really captures the tension many of us are sitting with right now as history teachers—especially around AI, writing, and what we’re actually asking students to do when we assign writing.

I don’t think writing in social studies is dead either, but I do agree that AI is reshaping what meaningful writing looks like and how students engage with it. The idea that writing is a thinking process, not just a product, resonated deeply with me. That framing has helped me move away from asking, “How do I stop AI use?” and toward “What kinds of thinking do I want students to practice that AI can’t replace?”

For some context, after a decade in elementary administration and curriculum development, I returned to the classroom this year as a first-time high school history teacher. Teaching has always been part of my work, but stepping into secondary content and older learners has stretched my thinking—especially around AI and historical reasoning. I’m still learning alongside my students.

One shift I’ve made is grounding writing and note-taking in a CAPPS framework (Context, Audience, Perspective, Purpose, Synthesis). Students use it not just to organize information, but to interrogate narratives and look for what I call the “CAP”—the omissions, half-truths, and biases embedded in historical documents and dominant accounts. That lens has been especially powerful in an AI-rich environment, where responses can sound polished but often flatten complexity or perspective.

During our French Revolution unit, for example, students completed a fully unplugged escape room built around document analysis. Each station required short written responses tied to performance task questions, and students had to annotate sources, justify claims, and revise interpretations to move forward. The goal wasn’t to avoid technology for its own sake, but to create conditions where thinking and sense-making were unavoidable. The quality of students’ final written arguments and discussions reflected that investment.

What your post helped me name is that AI doesn’t eliminate the need for writing—it pushes us to be more intentional about why students are writing and what kind of thinking that writing is meant to surface. Summary is easy now. Analysis, synthesis, and perspective-taking are not—and those feel like the heart of social studies.

I appreciate this piece for opening space for that kind of reflection. I’m still finding my rhythm with all of this, but conversations like this one feel like the right place to start.

Charlene Dixon  Thank you so much for sharing your reflections and practice. How cool that you're viewing your experience this year as a chance to learn alongside students. I think that's how great teachers approach their craft, and it must be encouraging for students to see you model that mindset.

The CAPPS framework sounds like a meaningful way to draw out and organize student thinking, and I imagine they love the chance to name the "CAP" subtext. What a great way to make historical thinking skills feel relevant to the critical thinking students already bring to their daily lives.

I appreciate the conversation, too. We always love to hear from teachers and see (anonymous!) student work if anyone is up for sharing. Thanks for contributing to our community.