My official position on the use of AI in the classroom

 

Yes, here it is. I have reviewed my thoughts, catalogued my experiences and quantified the qualifiers, and here it all is.

First, the question: how do we, as instructors of writing, hold students responsible for writing literary responses when there is the specter of AI writing to contend with?

I think that this requires that we re-evaluate exactly what we are trying to accomplish in our instruction of writing and the writing process. I have dealt with many of these issues here and here and I will be repeating some earlier sentiments (apologies) but then crafting them into practical applications by the end of this piece.

As I have written elsewhere, I am a fan of establishing a strong foundation of concrete skills for students to rely on and build upon. We cannot absolve students of the need to be able to do simple arithmetic just because they have access to calculators. Not only will there be situations in which the calculator is inaccessible, but the thinking skills (read: neural passageways) that are developed train the mind to be able to do other types of thinking -- it is an exportable strength. The patience and strategizing-organization that the brain must employ are not limited to doing simple arithmetic, but to all problem solving situations. So the skills, important on their own, are essential in conditioning the brain, preparing it for unforeseen challenges. Stretching before a basketball game makes the muscles more capable on the run home as well.

I reiterate, then, that students still need to learn, acquire and master skills and in my 10th grade (grade level) class, this means mastering a particular structure for a thesis, a body paragraph and a transition. To me, these are non-negotiable elements to proper and complete student writing. Sure there are many ways to go about structuring essays and thesis statements, but in my class, I use a specific form and formula. The resultant essay is "cookie cutter" but it is complete and does the job. AI cannot teach these skills so my job is somewhat set. And if I'm concerned about the AI involvement, then I can (have and will continue to) require students to practice these skills in the absence of technology. Yes, this smacks of hiding my head in the sand, but I don't think that we can abandon the ol' pen and paper. Unless a student has fine motor skills issues, I believe that any students can write (or dictate, in a situation in which the accommodation is a scribe) a sentence that follows a formula. I believe that a student whose accommodation is the use of a computer can be monitored in the classroom as he types a single paragraph. Either a lock-down browser or simply an observant teacher and a well-placed computer can dissuade a student from using an automated system instead of his own head. Students (at least on this level) need to be drilled repeatedly, tested to see that they can make a thesis, build a paragraph which connects text and idea and then set up a transition which reaches back to complete a thought and introduces the one next expected via the thesis.

Earlier today, I sat down with the ChatGPT website and fed it one of my essay prompts, verbatim. I then had it generate 10 "different" responses. I put that word in quotes because it often churned out identical sentences and phrases (in fact, were I to try and detect whether an AI composed a response, I would first run the prompt through and then look for repeated phrases and structures in the responses I evaluate because the LLM repeats itself). What the computer came up with wasn't horrible but it could not predict structures that I taught in the classroom, even if I used phrases like "proper thesis" or "transition." The writing was generically competent and even (mostly) textually accurate but would not satisfy the requirements of my class. Paragraphs lacked specific detail, included over-generalizations and external information and relied on broad statements. The ideas were left unconnected. I believe that a student, trained in how to create a thesis, a body paragraph and a transition in my class would see clearly the failings of the AI generated response, and if not immediately, would see them after more direct instruction to help him or her acquire this specific skill.

The solution then (in my not-so-humble opinion) is to isolate the two categories of skills and address each one differently: students should be required to construct the necessary elements of a literary essay without technological mediation. Simple as that -- if we are concerned about the use of AI, require that all work is done in class and without computers (or without unmoderated computer use). This will address issues of Lower Order Thinking Skills and will ground the student in the relevant and class-established expectations.

AI provides the opportunity, though, for the evaluation (a Higher Order Thinking Skill) of text and frees up the student from HAVING to create the material to be evaluated. This is its power -- it speeds up a process that we could do if we wanted. If we can't do it without a computer then we shouldn't be relying on technology. But if we can, and just want to move on to other things, then the AI is a great tool. The real problem I'm seeing is that people use technology instead of developing the skills so they can't evaluate the product created outside of their brains. If I am used to having a computer compute my averages in class but I don't udnerstand how those averages are computed than I won't see the problem when the computer generates a result which is wrong. If I can't read a map or plan my own trip, then I can't assess whether computerized directions might be in error. Attaching motors to pump my legs if I don't know how to walk won't make me a faster runner -- it will cause me to fall on my face.

The real skill that we have to cultivate then, after we get through the basics of content creation is content revision, and by using the AI to make the material to be revised, we can craft tens and hundreds of equivalent samples that students can then work on. The student can then practice the higher order thinking skill of evaluating and revising, assessing and commenting without having to spend the time creating the base materials with which to work. But this only works if the student understands how to make that basic content so he has something to compare the AI creation to. In the actual work by the student, the technology is unnecessary as the practical skill of revising is easily accomplished on paper so we no longer have to worry about the reliance on AI. And if the assignment is on revision, to ensure that it is done authentically, we can collect the work, not just the finished, revised work. We can say, like a math class, that the student can use a calculator but we have to see all the work.

The assignment, then, has a variety of steps and two distinct components:

1. Assign a text

2. Assess the reading (through quizzes, short responses, class discussions)

A. instruct on the format of a thesis, body paragraph and transition

B. practice elements of item A repeatedly

3. Assign a lockdown-browser, or by-hand timed assessment requiring elements in item A

THEN

4. Feed the prompt(s) for step 3 into an AI text generator

5. Have students "grade" the product of step 4, comparing it to the obligations expected because of item A

While larger writing assignments can then follow, especially if they are based on work generated in-class, or even AI material revised by the student and brought up to class-spec. If we are starting a larger assignment from absolute scratch, and we have no particular format or stylistic demands, then we might require running the completed product through an AI checker (which I don't particularly trust), but at that point we are as concerned about the student's honesty as we would be of a student whose tutor does most of the writing when essays are assigned to be completed at home (which cannot be caught by a plagiarism checker).

In any case, we free ourselves of the ChatGPT of Damocles because we have established that the student has the actual skills expected and then can apply them in an authentic way.

Teaching writing is about teaching the process of creation so we need to evaluate the steps in the process and stop being worried that a final result which materializes out of thin air is suddenly suspect. There is no assessible process when the assignment is left to be done away from school, begining to end so that is a less effective measure of any specific process-based skill anyway.