Using AI to Write Your Literature Review: What it does Well and Poorly

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The video provides valuable insights into the practical use of AI for academic writing, highlighting both its strengths (brainstorming, outlining, suggesting resources) and weaknesses (inability to access full texts, vague summaries, lack of depth). The argumentation is based on the author’s direct experience, which adds authenticity. However, the evaluation is subjective and limited to one AI tool (Copilot) and one topic. The author’s critique of the AI-generated text is thoughtful, pointing out the lack of specificity and the generic nature of the writing. The video effectively argues that AI can be a helpful assistant but not a replacement for the intellectual engagement required for a quality literature review.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The video does not cite external sources beyond the articles suggested by Copilot, which are not verified. The author mentions specific articles and authors (e.g., Cook-Sather, Carpenter Burgess) but does not provide URLs. The title accurately reflects the content. The author’s methodology is transparent, showing his rubric and thought process. However, the lack of verifiable sources and the anecdotal nature of the evaluation limit the scientific rigor. The video is more of a personal reflection than a systematic analysis.

The title accurately reflects the content, which is a personal evaluation of AI's strengths and weaknesses in writing a literature review.

7/10

The video is an expert opinion based on the author's personal experience as a professor. It provides a detailed, honest account of using AI for a literature review, but it is not a systematic study and relies on anecdotal evidence.

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

• 00:30Introduction: Whitehead explains his goal to compare human vs AI literature review writing.
• 02:00Shows the rubric he uses for students, outlining the steps of a literature review.
• 04:00Uses Copilot to brainstorm a topic; Copilot suggests a research question and themes.
• 07:00Selects 'students as partners' as the focus and asks Copilot for six peer-reviewed articles.
• 10:00Copilot provides article suggestions but cannot provide PDFs; Whitehead struggles to access them.
• 13:00Asks Copilot to write the literature review; receives a 1,200-word draft.
• 16:00Critiques the AI-generated review for being vague and lacking practical details.
• 20:00Evaluates the AI output against his rubric, giving it a low score.
• 25:00Concludes that AI is useful for brainstorming but not for producing a meaningful literature review.

• Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty — Suggested by Copilot as a resource on student-faculty partnership.
• Student Perspectives on General Education — Suggested by Copilot as a historical source on student views of gen ed.
• Students as Co-creators of Teaching Approaches, Course Design, and Curricula — Suggested by Copilot, referencing Cook-Sather's work.
• Engagement through Partnership: Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching — Suggested by Copilot as a resource on partnership approaches.

• Student voice in higher education — Supports the importance of student perspectives in education.
• Self-determination theory — Relevant to the author's mention of this theory in the context of student engagement.