MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DIPLOMATIC ACADEMY OF VIETNAM
FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS
FINAL TERM PAPER
COURSE: REPORT WRITING
SEMESTER I- ACADEMIC YEAR 2024-2025
COURSE CLASS: KNVBC-KDQT48CLC_Lớp2
Lecturer GVTA. Nguyễn Đỗ Ngân
Giang
Student Phan Lê Cẩm Tú
Student ID Number KDQT48C10102
Administrative Class KDQT48C1.2
1
Hà Nội, 1/2025.
2
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF AI-GENERATED REPORT ON
SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES AT UNIVERSITIES
Introduction
The AI-generated report titled "The Benefits and Challenges of
Implementing Sustainability Practices at Universities" analyzes the
implementation of sustainability practices at universities, focusing on their
benefits and challenges. It discusses key advantages, such as cost
savings, improved campus life, and enhanced reputation, while addressing
common challenges, including funding constraints, resistance to change,
and logistical complexities. It also mentions some recommendations to
address those challenges and makes a conclusion to sum all things up.
The purpose of this critique is to evaluate the report’s strengths and
weaknesses and provide recommendations to improve its structure,
content, and language for a more effective and comprehensive
presentation.
Strengths
The report demonstrates several notable strengths that contribute to its
effectiveness and engagement. Its clear and logical structure is a key
highlight, with content divided into distinct sections such as the Executive
Summary, Introduction, Benefits, Challenges, Recommendations, and
Conclusion. This organization ensures that each section addresses a
specific aspect of the topic comprehensively, enhancing readability and
understanding. Furthermore, the inclusion of numbered subheadings, such
as 2.1 Cost Savings and 3.1 Funding Constraints, significantly improves
navigation, allowing readers to quickly locate relevant information.
Another strength lies in the report’s professional language and tone. By
employing terms like "logistical complexities" and "sustainability
initiatives," the report effectively conveys technical concepts with clarity
and precision. This formal tone is well-suited for an academic or
professional audience, reflecting the report’s intended purpose. Moreover,
the inclusion of practical examples, such as energy-efficient buildings and
3
renewable energy projects, adds relatability and substantiates the report’s
claims. For example, the discussion in 2.1 Cost Savings demonstrates how
energy-efficient practices can lead to tangible financial benefits, a critical
motivator for universities seeking sustainable solutions.
The report’s emphasis on sustainability is particularly relevant, given the
growing concerns surrounding environmental responsibility within the
education sector. By addressing a timely issue, the report aligns itself with
current priorities and highlights the importance of integrating
sustainability into institutional practices. These strengths collectively
establish the report as a well-structured, insightful, and relevant resource.
Weaknesses
Despite its strengths, the report has notable shortcomings. First, it lacks
depth in analyzing the challenges presented. For instance, in 3.2
Resistance to Change, the discussion is limited to a general mention of
stakeholder resistance without exploring its root causes or potential
solutions. Similarly, 3.4 Measuring Impact fails to offer concrete examples
or methods to address the difficulty of assessing sustainability outcomes.
These oversights reduce the report’s analytical value.
Second, the report is insufficiently supported by evidence. It relies on
generalizations rather than quantitative data or specific case studies. For
example, in 2.1 Cost Savings, the claim that energy-efficient buildings
reduce costs is not backed by statistics or research. This lack of evidence
undermines the credibility of the report’s arguments.
Third, the report suffers from repetition of ideas, particularly concepts like
collaboration and awareness campaigns, which appear in both the
Benefits and Recommendations sections without adding new insights. This
redundancy makes the report lack depth, reduces the overall impact,
makes the content feel less focused, and is not convincing to the reader.
Fourth, the transitions between sections are weak. The shift from Benefits
to Challenges is particularly abrupt, for example, as it lacks a connecting
4
statement to bridge the discussion. This disrupts the logical flow and
creates a fragmented reading experience.
And last but not least, there is an issue with how the report presented by
AI is formatted. A standard report should not include too many
subheadings with just 2-3 sentences of scant content. Ideas need to be
developed into paragraphs that are logical and interconnected instead.
For example, instead of listing 4 consecutive subheadings in sections
2.Benefits, 3.Challenges and 4.Recommendations, the writer should
weave these ideas into paragraphs with tight arguments, avoiding making
the content feel empty and disjointed.
Suggestions for Improvement
After analyzing the report’s strengths and shortcomings generated by AI, I
would mention some measures to make it more specific. To address these
issues, the report would benefit from delving deeper into its analysis of
the challenges. For example, in section 3.2 Resistance to Change, it would
be helpful to explain why resistance happens, such as fears of increased
workload or lack of training, and propose practical solutions like staff
workshops or stakeholder engagement initiatives (Knox & Marin-Cadavid,
2022). Similarly, in 3.4 Measuring Impact, the report could suggest
specific ways to measure progress, such as tracking how much waste is
reduced or how energy use changes.
Incorporating quantitative data and real-world case studies would also
significantly strengthen the report. To be more specific, showing how a
college saved money by using energy-efficient buildings or highlighting a
successful sustainability program at a well-known institution would give
readers clear evidence to believe in the ideas presented. Several
universities have successfully implemented sustainability initiatives that
could serve as valuable case studies. The University of Michigan's
Sustainability Cultural Indicators Program (SCIP) is a multi-year effort
designed to assess and promote sustainability culture on campus. SCIP
collects data on community awareness and behavior, providing insights
that inform operational decisions and sustainability policies (Robert W. &
5
Callewaert, 2017). Including examples like the University of Michigan’s
SCIP program would strengthen the report’s recommendations. Similarly,
Bond University in Australia's ten key principles for sustainability, which
incorporate governance and green funding (Dr Bajracharya, 2011), could
serve as a practical roadmap for universities . By incorporating case
studies, the report could better illustrate the transformative impact of
sustainability practices on campuses.
The report also needs smoother transitions between sections. A linked
sentence could make the move between paragraphs feel more natural. For
example, adding a sentence, such as: “While these benefits are valuable,
they often come with challenges,” could make the shift from Benefits to
Challenges feel more natural. Additionally, repeated ideas, such as
promoting collaboration and educational campaigns mentioned in the
Recommendations part, should be grouped into one section. This measure
would make the report more focused and avoid saying the same thing
twice.
Finally, enhancing the language with varied vocabulary and precise
expressions would elevate the report’s professionalism. For instance,
instead of repeating "enhanced reputation," alternatives like "bolstered
institutional image" or "improved public perception" could be used to
maintain reader attention.
Conclusion
In general, the AI-generated report provides a good starting point for
understanding the benefits and challenges of sustainability practices in
universities. Its structured approach, professional tone, and use of
examples are commendable. However, the report falls short in its depth of
analysis, lack of supporting evidence, and weak transitions. By addressing
these issues and implementing the suggested improvements, the report
could become a more effective and insightful resource, showcasing the
value of sustainability in higher education while demonstrating the
potential of AI-generated content when combined with thoughtful human
oversight.
6
7
REFERENCES
1. Knox, S. & Marin-Cadavid, C. (2022). A practice approach to
fostering employee engagement in innovation initiatives in public
service organisations. Public Management Review.
Full article: A practice approach to fostering employee engagement
in innovation initiatives in public service organisations
2. Robert W. Marans & John Callewaert (2017). Evaluating
Sustainability Initiatives on University Campuses: A Case Study from
the University of Michigan’s Sustainability Cultural Indicators
Program (Handbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable
Development in Higher Education, University Of Michigan, USA).
428359_1_En_14_Chapter 189..199
3. Dr Bhishna Bajracharya & Dr Linda (2011). Building a sustainable
university campus: A case study of Bond University (Refereed Paper
(Research Conference), Bond University, Australia)
(21) Building a sustainable university campus: A case study of Bond
University
4. Michael Crow (2024). Time 100 Climate 2024. Time.
Michael Crow: TIME100 Climate 2024 | TIME
5. Mukhlash Abrar (2018). A critical evaluation of qualitative reports
and their contribution to education research (Journal of Linguistics
Education, 7 (1), 2017, 13-22).
(PDF) A Critical Evaluation of Qualitative Reports and Their
Contributions to Educational Research
