Use AI to study, research and write without losing your own thinking

Learn in your browser · Chapter 01 of 06

Before deciding how to use AI, look at what helps people learn. Then ask of every use: does this do the mental work for me, or make me do more of it?

Learning is building a memory you can use later, without help. A 2013 review by Dunlosky and colleagues rated ten study techniques. Two received the top rating, 'high utility': practice testing, called retrieval practice here (trying to recall before you check), and distributed practice, or spacing (spreading study over days). Self-explanation (explaining in your own words) was rated 'moderate utility' because it had not been adequately evaluated in educational contexts. Rereading, highlighting and summarising were among the five rated 'low utility'.

A 2006 review by Cepeda and colleagues pooled 839 assessments of spacing from 317 experiments: the best gap grew as the time until the test grew.

In Roediger and Karpicke's 2006 experiments, university students studied short passages. After five minutes, restudying gave better recall (81% against 75%); after a week, a recall test did (56% against 42%). Students who read a passage about 14 times felt more confident, yet recalled less a week later than students who tested themselves (40% against 61%). Feeling fluent is not learning.

These were short memory tests, before today's AI tools: they show what to protect, not what AI does. The Department for Education (2025) says evidence on students' own use of AI is still emerging. Two field studies help:

Scroll sideways to see every column.

Learn in your browser · Chapter 02 of 06

Four workflows keep you doing the thinking. Each has a prompt you can copy.

Attempt first: write your answer before you see the assistant's. Use your own material: notes you wrote, or text you may use, with nothing private in it (see Chapter 6).

1. Quiz me.

I wrote these notes on [topic]. Ask me one question at a time, from recall to 'why' and 'how'. Wait for my answer, then say what I got right, what I missed and which line of my notes covers it. Do not reveal answers before I attempt them.

[paste your notes]

2. Explain at different levels, then write your own version.

Explain [concept] for a ten-year-old, a first-year undergraduate and a specialist, saying what you left out each time.

Here is my own explanation. Where is it wrong or vague? Do not rewrite it.

3. Check my understanding.

I will explain [concept] in my own words. Ask up to three probing questions. Do not correct me until I have answered.

4. Notes into practice questions.

Turn the passage below into 10 questions: 4 recall, 3 'explain in your own words' and 3 'apply it'. Put the answers at the end, each with the sentence it comes from.

[paste your passage]

Asking for the source sentence lets you catch invented answers. Check every answer against your notes: an assistant can mark you wrongly too. Then space it: retry the questions tomorrow, in a few days and in a week, adjusting to how long you need to remember.

Learn in your browser · Chapter 03 of 06

An assistant can suggest search terms or explain a word. It is not a source: use it for leads, then find real sources yourself. Here is why, and a method to use every time.

These tools write text that is statistically likely to fit your request. JCQ says replies can seem convincing yet be wrong or biased, and that some tools produce fake references. The Department for Education calls false information presented as fact 'hallucination'.

In a 2023 study, Walters and Wilder asked two versions of a popular chat assistant for literature reviews on 42 topics and checked all 636 references: 55% (earlier version) and 18% (later) were fabricated, and 43% and 24% of the real ones had substantive errors. Tools have changed, so treat this as a reason to check, not a rate. The authors note that fabricated references tend to look legitimate at first glance, and that assistants often answer wrongly when asked to verify a citation: never ask an AI to check itself.

Check every claim and citation in five steps.

1. Split the text into claims and citations.
2. Find each source yourself by its exact title, in a library search or the publisher's site. If you cannot find it, treat it as unverified (it may be invented, or just missing from your index): ask a librarian and do not cite it until you have seen it.
3. Match authors, year, title, journal, volume and pages. A real paper with wrong details is still a wrong citation.
4. Open the source and find the passage that supports the claim.
5. Give a verdict (supported, partly supported, contradicted or not found), rewrite the claim to say what the source says, and cite what you read.

Keep a verification log: one row per claim, with source found, details match, where you looked and verdict.

Learn in your browser · Chapter 04 of 06

Writing is where AI use is most tempting and most risky. One rule keeps the work yours: your first draft comes before the assistant.

Drafting is where you find out what you think. If an assistant writes the first version, you inherit its structure, claims and gaps. The maths experiment in Chapter 1 found students used unrestricted help as a 'crutch', but its authors note that writing lacks the objective marking criteria that maths has, and that other settings need more study. Treat draft-first as sound practice, not a proven result.

1. Write a rough draft from your own notes, with no AI.
2. Ask for feedback, not a rewrite.
3. Decide each change yourself: accept, reject or adapt.
4. Do the rewriting yourself, in your own words.
5. Log what came from where, and keep dated drafts: with the log, they are your best evidence if the work is ever questioned.

For step 2, try these prompts.

Here is my draft. Do not rewrite it. State the main point of each paragraph, then tell me where the order is unclear.

Mark sentences that are hard to follow and say why. Offer no replacement wording.

What is the strongest objection a sceptical reader would raise? Supply no facts or sources.

Ask before using even light help such as grammar checking: Jisc's guidance for the education sector notes that students need clear advice on when feedback on writing should be declared.

Keep your voice. JCQ tells teachers that generic content, little specific knowledge or a style unlike your earlier work may raise questions. The aim is not to beat a detector but to make the ideas, examples and judgement yours: add what only you know.

Scroll sideways to see every column.

Learn in your browser · Chapter 05 of 06

Whoever assesses you sets the rules, and the rules differ. Find them first, follow them, and be open about what you did.

Policy first. Read the assignment brief, course handbook or academic integrity policy, the exam board's rules or your employer's policy, and ask in writing if unsure. 'Not banned' is not 'allowed': permission for feedback may not cover drafting.

Scroll sideways to see every column.

Disclose. Use the template below, naming the tool and version, not just 'AI'. JCQ's student guide adds: do not sign a declaration that the work is your own until every use is acknowledged.

AI use statement
I used [tool name and version] on [date] to [purpose].
I wrote the first draft myself. It suggested [what]; I [accepted / changed / rejected] this by [what you did].
I checked every fact and reference against the original source and kept my prompts and its replies.
The arguments, examples and final wording are my own.

Detectors are not proof. JCQ says detection tools vary in accuracy and belong within a holistic judgement. Jisc says no tool can conclusively prove AI authorship and that they produce false positives. In a 2023 test of 14 tools, none scored above 80% accuracy and the authors judged them unsuitable as evidence of misconduct (Weber-Wulff and colleagues). In another 2023 study, seven detectors wrongly flagged an average of 61.3% of 91 essays by non-native English writers as AI-generated (Liang and colleagues). A score can still start a conversation, so be ready to talk through your work.

If you are wrongly accused (guidance, not legal advice; your own written procedure governs):

1. Stay calm, tell the truth and delete nothing: JCQ treats knowingly giving misleading information as malpractice.
2. Ask in writing for the allegation, the evidence and the procedure. For JCQ coursework, concerns raised before you sign the declaration of authentication follow your school or college's own policy. After you sign, they go to the awarding body; if there is enough evidence, JCQ's procedure says you must be told the allegation, made aware of the evidence and given time to respond in writing.
3. Gather dated drafts, notes, version history, your log and saved chats, and be ready to talk through the work in your own words.
4. Get support from your students' union, a parent or carer, or an adviser; JCQ allows a candidate to be accompanied at an interview.
5. Know the appeal route. JCQ appeals normally must be made within 14 days of the outcome, through your school or college unless you are a private candidate. For higher education in England and Wales, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator's framework (October 2018) says the provider carries the burden of proof and should allow an appeal.

Learn in your browser · Chapter 06 of 06

A chat assistant runs on someone else's computers. What you type leaves your control, so decide in advance what never goes in.

The Department for Education says many free tools use what you enter to train their models and that entered data should not identify anyone. The National Cyber Security Centre (March 2023) recommends keeping sensitive information, and anything that would cause problems if made public, out of public tools.

Scroll sideways to see every column.

The stranger test: would I be comfortable if a stranger read this? If not, leave it out. Where your university or employer provides an approved tool, use that for work data and check its settings.