1 What we’re really trying to learn (research goal)

“What would make Litero an AI-writing assistant a university educator is willing to put their name behind?”

That breaks down into the learnings we must walk away with:

  1. Trust recipe – the specific ethical, pedagogical and policy boxes Litero has to tick before a prof says, “Yep, my students can use this.”
  2. Red-line risks – behaviours or features that instantly break trust (plagiarism worries, hallucinations, data leaks, humanizer, etc.).

→ Product design alignment

→ Sharable educational content

→ Long-term: building a community of ambassadors and collaborators

2 Scope & sampling plan

Surveys Interviews
Target volume 20-30 completed responses 8-10 deep-dive calls (45 min)
Profile mix Practising college instructors who:
• Teach writing-heavy subjects (Writing, Humanities, Social Sci, Business Comms).
• Ideally include Writing Center staff or academic integrity officers as well Same pool
Acceptance criteria • Currently teach ≥ 1 course. Meets survey criteria.
Recruiting channels Our own Upwork lists of teachers + outreach list of contacted teachers, email broadcasts Same pool, but ideally we cherry-pick the best survey respondents.
Incentive - $75 Amazon voucher

3 Survey questions

  1. Short intro
    1. current teacher/research assistant; “i don’t teact anymore”; other etc
    2. uni/school
    3. country
    4. “writing-heavy subjects” / stem
  2. What are the rules about AI tools in writing at your institution?
    1. Fully allowed and encouraged
    2. Allowed for brainstorming/outlining only
    3. Allowed with disclosure/citation required
    4. Prohibited entirely
    5. No clear rules / I don’t know
    6. Other
  3. Open text: Biggest benefit you’ve personally experienced (or expect) from AI tools.
  4. Open text: Biggest concern you still have.
  5. Open text: “Describe a deal-breaker that would make you ban an AI tool immediately.”
  6. Optional email if they’re open to a follow-up 20-30 min call for a $75 Amazon e-card.