This artifact is a collection of blog posts written through my time as a teaching fellow. They are on such topics as anti-racist education, teaching after the COVID-19 pandemic, and student use of AI-assisted writing tools.
October 18, 2023
From the Electric Horse’s Mouth: Talking to AI About Students and Writing
The world is on the cusp of the normalization of the use of AI tools. That’s an opinion based on observation, from someone who is deeply suspicious of AI (in a science-fiction kind of way). I’ll be perfectly frank: I use AI to help me write all the time. The more I use AI tools, the more aware I become of just how limited these tools are. I even pay for the newest version of GPT, because I recognize the value of AI tools. I also, however, have been warning my students that AI assisted writing is not a silver bullet, that it has many limitations and it can’t “really” produce “good” writing. But how are students supposed to learn that if we don’t let them try?
The texts we’ve been examining so far this semester have come from the book TextGenEd: Teaching with Text Generation Technologies by Tim Laquintano, Carly Schnitzler, and Annette Vee. In this volume, the authors explore AI assisted writing tools, and they all seem to agree that the world of writing and writing education are changing, whether we like it or not. In the volume, we’ve heard for educators, from AI experts, and even from students in some cases. But we have not heard from the AI in question. So, I asked her.
Q: Do you think you’re a good writer? A: I’m designed to generate text based on patterns in the data I was trained on, and I strive to provide coherent, relevant, and grammatically correct responses. Whether or not I’m considered a “good writer” depends on the context and criteria of evaluation: **Consistency and Grammar**: I’m generally reliable in producing grammatically correct sentences and adhering to conventional writing standards. **Speed and Volume**: I can generate text quickly and can provide vast amounts of information on a wide range of topics. **Flexibility**: I can adapt to various writing styles, tones, and topics based on user prompts. However, there are areas where human writers generally outshine me: **Original Creativity**: While I can mimic creative styles, I don’t originate truly novel creative ideas in the way humans do. My “creativity” is a recombination of existing patterns. **Deep Contextual Understanding**: I don’t have emotions, personal experiences, or an innate understanding of human nuances. Therefore, I might miss subtle implications or the deeper context behind certain topics or prompts. **Ethical Judgment**: I don’t possess moral or ethical values, and I can’t make value judgments about what’s right or wrong. **Continuous Learning in Real-Time**: My knowledge has a cutoff in 2021, which means I’m not aware of events, cultural shifts, or new literature produced after that date. In summary, while I can be a helpful writing tool and assist in many writing tasks, the true artistry, emotional depth, and ethical considerations of writing are uniquely human traits [emphasis added].
Now, we know that AI doesn’t have self-awareness (yet). We know that she can’t form opinions about herself, or anything else for that matter. AI understands the limitations of AI writing because someone has programmed her to give this answer when prompted. However, that mimicry of self-awareness doesn’t mean that the limitations of AI will be readily apparent to students, if students aren’t taught to critically examine the limitations of AI. The future where everyone uses AI for (nearly) everything is already coming down the pipeline. Shouldn’t we equip our students for that future?
Q: Do you think students can successfully you use to create good writing? A: Yes, students can use me to assist with their writing, but how they use me and the outcomes they achieve depend on the goals and the context. Here are some ways students might successfully employ me, along with some caveats: ### Pros: **Research Assistance**: I can provide explanations, definitions, and overviews on a wide range of topics. If a student is writing a research paper, for instance, I can help clarify concepts or provide background information. **Grammar and Syntax**: I can help students identify and correct grammatical errors, improve sentence structure, and refine their writing. **Brainstorming**: If a student is struggling with writer’s block or needs ideas, I can help generate prompts, suggest possible angles for an essay, or provide outlines. **Language Learning**: For students learning a new language, I can provide translations, explanations, and practice in using the language. **Feedback**: While I don’t have emotions or personal biases, I can provide feedback based on logic, coherence, and textual analysis. ### Caveats: **Over-reliance**: If students rely too heavily on me, they might not develop critical thinking, research, and writing skills essential for academic success. It’s important to use me as a tool, not a crutch. **Plagiarism Concerns**: If students present generated content from me as their own original work, it’s academically dishonest. Schools and institutions generally have strict policies against plagiarism, which can have severe consequences. **Lack of Originality**: Because my responses are based on patterns in existing data, I don’t produce genuinely original ideas. While I can help students generate content, the depth, creativity, and personal touch come from the human writer. **Nuances and Depth**: I might miss deeper, nuanced understandings of certain topics, especially if they relate to personal experiences, emotions, or very recent events (post-2021). **Dependency for Understanding**: If students use me to get summaries without delving into primary sources or understanding the core material, they might miss out on critical aspects of their education. In conclusion, I can be a valuable tool for students in their writing process, but how they integrate me into their learning journey makes all the difference. It’s essential to strike a balance between utilizing AI assistance and cultivating one’s own skills and understanding.
We all assumed immediately that students would attempt to use AI tools to “cheat.” Regardless of whether that is a fair assumption and regardless of what your definition of “cheating” is (something which was explored in the chapter The Term Paper Turing Test: “Cheating” for AI Literacy by Paul Fyfe from North Carolina State University), AI is still not ready to produce the caliber and type of work that will replace human authors. As we tell our students, we can tell when they use AI, because it’s obvious when AI is used poorly. If a student presses a button and receives a paper, we can tell, not because we have a spidey sense, but because the paper will probably stink. However, the use of AI tools in writing sparks an interesting and valid conversation about authorship and the economies of writing.
Q: Professional writers often outsource key parts of the writing process to other people, yet they maintain their role of the ‘author’ of the text. Do you think that is different from writers using AI to assist in the writing process? A: The use of assistants, editors, and other contributors in the writing process by professional writers, and the use of AI tools like me, both raise interesting questions about authorship, originality, and the creative process. Let’s consider some comparisons and contrasts: ### Similarities: **Collaborative Process**: Both scenarios involve collaboration. Whether it’s an editor suggesting changes to an author’s draft or an AI tool helping a writer structure an essay, the final product is shaped by multiple inputs. **Tool vs. Authorship**: Just as a writer remains the author when using a pen, typewriter, or word processing software, they also remain the author when using AI. The tool (whether AI or not) facilitates the expression of ideas but doesn’t claim ownership over them. **Enhancement**: Both human assistants and AI tools can enhance the final product, making it more polished, coherent, and effective. ### Differences: **Human Experience & Emotion**: Human collaborators bring their own experiences, emotions, insights, and nuances to the process. Their input is based on a lived experience, which can add depth and richness to the content. AI lacks this lived experience and emotional depth. **Ethical Considerations**: While both scenarios can raise ethical concerns, they differ in nature. For instance, if a writer overly relies on ghostwriters without credit, it can be seen as deceptive. Similarly, if a writer uses AI-generated content without adequate input or editing and passes it off as entirely original work, it might be considered dishonest. **Learning & Growth**: Interacting with human collaborators can lead to mutual learning and personal growth. Editors, peers, or co-writers often challenge and expand an author’s perspective. An AI tool, while useful, doesn’t offer the same type of dynamic, two-way growth experience. **Reliability & Bias**: Human collaborators come with their own biases and perspectives, which can both enrich and limit the content. AI tools, while seemingly neutral, are also not free from bias, as they’re trained on datasets that may contain inherent biases. However, AI doesn’t have personal motives or emotions, so its “bias” is rooted in its training data, not personal experiences. **Creativity & Originality**: Human collaborators can introduce entirely novel ideas or creative twists based on their unique thought processes. AI, on the other hand, produces content based on patterns from its training data. While it can mimic creativity, it doesn’t introduce genuinely original ideas in the same way a human might. In conclusion, while there are overlaps in the ethical and creative considerations surrounding both human collaborators and AI tools, the nature and implications of each are distinct. As with any tool or collaboration, the key lies in transparent, ethical use and understanding the strengths and limitations of the chosen assistance.
I, personally, believe that the best way to avoid plagiarism via AI is by teaching students to use AI as a tool to help them write better. No one ever accused the TI-84 of doing someone’s homework. If we encourage students to view AI as simply another tool in their arsenal of writing tools, maybe that will remove the mystique and taboo around AI writing, and maybe students will be less likely to think of it as an essay writing machine.
Q: Do you think that schools should attempt to limit student use of AI for assignments? A: The use of AI in educational settings is a nuanced topic. There are both potential benefits and drawbacks to consider. Let’s look at the arguments for and against limiting student use of AI for assignments: ### Reasons to Limit AI Use: **Academic Integrity**: One of the primary concerns is academic dishonesty. If students use AI to generate complete essays or answers and present them as their own, it undermines the learning process and can be considered a form of plagiarism. **Skill Development**: Over-reliance on AI can impede the development of critical thinking, research, and writing skills. Schools aim to foster independent thinking and problem-solving abilities, which can be compromised if students lean too heavily on AI. **Dependence on Technology**: Overusing AI tools might make students overly dependent on external help, preventing them from trusting and cultivating their capabilities. **Evaluation Challenges**: If students use AI assistance, it can be challenging for educators to assess the student’s actual knowledge and skills accurately. **Level Playing Field**: Not all students may have equal access to advanced AI tools, leading to disparities in the quality of work based on access to technology rather than intellectual effort. ### Reasons Against Limiting AI Use: **Educational Tool**: When used responsibly, AI can be a valuable educational tool. It can assist with grammar, provide feedback, help students understand complex topics, or offer practice in language learning. **Preparing for the Future**: As AI becomes increasingly integrated into various sectors, including professional writing, familiarizing students with these tools can prepare them for real-world applications. **Accessibility & Accommodation**: AI tools can be especially valuable for students with disabilities, offering assistance and leveling the playing field. **Research and Exploration**: AI can be used as a starting point for research, providing quick answers to basic questions and allowing students to delve deeper into topics of interest. **Skill Augmentation**: Instead of replacing human skills, AI can augment them. For instance, while working on a complex project, a student might use AI to organize information or generate an initial draft, then refine, expand, and personalize it based on their research and insights. ### Conclusion: Given the potential benefits and drawbacks, it might be more productive for schools to focus on guiding and educating students about responsible AI use rather than implementing blanket bans. This could involve: – Educating students about the ethical implications of AI use. – Teaching them to use AI as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for their own work. – Encouraging critical thinking about AI-generated content. – Implementing clear guidelines and policies about what constitutes acceptable AI use for assignments. In essence, the goal would be to integrate AI into the educational experience in a way that amplifies learning without compromising academic integrity or skill development.
You heard her, folks.
The entire transcript of my conversation with her (which includes lots of interesting other questions I did not include in this post!) can be found at: https://chat.openai.com/share/0446bb96-21f3-4af3-8153-ca5bcaa115c4
April 11, 2022
Plain Language and Why Autocorrect is Racist
We English scholars are a bunch of snobs. There, I said it.
Historically, English loves to gatekeep “correct” and “proper” English. Recent movements to decolonize the field have attempted to foster the ideology that no language usage is more correct than the other. And while anti-racist English standards are necessary, it’s also necessary to teach individuals how to make themselves intelligible in writing. Enter the plain language movement, stage left.
“Plain language may offer an important strategy for advancing social justice, but if used shallowly, it may deflect attention from vulnerable audience groups or other issues of access, and it may re-inscribe existing marginalization.”
In Effective Teaching of Technical Communication: Theory, Practice, and Application, we see an attempt to create an updated TPC pedagogy. In chapter 3: Engaging Plain Language in the Technical Communication Classroom, Kira Dreher attempts to give an overview of the plain language movement in the field of technical communication. Dreher begins her brief history of TPC in the dawn of the 20th century, where the need for standardization created “readability formulas,” which in fact are the ancestors of Word’s spell check, and other programs like Grammarly.
“Longo (2004) describes these [readability] formulas as “cultural artifacts” emerging in a post-World War II moment that championed the idea that “[a]n educated cit- izenry would be better prepared to understand and act on rapidly changing so- cial, technological, and political situations” (p. 166).”
Dreher tells us exactly how inadequate these formulas are, and how poorly they are being used today. Anyone who’s ever wanted to fight their auto-correct knows what she means. Making people frustrated and alienated by language is not the aim of TPC. Increasing language access to all is. Dreher says “Robust plain-language strategies overlap substantively with core aims of technical communication.”
“…plain language can be used to promote ethical communication, especially in contexts that are bureaucratic, unknown, rights-oriented, and critical for users. That said, ethical communication is not inherent to plain language (Ross, 2015), and in teaching, we must explicitly recognize that using plain language doesn’t guarantee ethical communication.”
Dreher goes beyond just discussing the topic, and actually gives five potential in-class applications of plain language for technical communication instructors, to help frame and explore the plain language movement with their students. It’s important to update our pedagogy to reflect these standards, she says. If we don’t address the needs of the communities served by plain language standards, we are not living up to our ideals of user-centered design.
“Any deep, substantive consideration of audience, especially in light of the recent plain-language movement focus on user trust (Schriver, 2017), demands that technical communication scholars confront the complex system of language and power that surrounds access to information. How is the notion of “plain” or “clear” language bound to race, class, and linguistic privilege?”
Dreher also gives some examples of plain language practices in various contexts, such as healthcare and government, and most importantly (to me) she spends time exploring the ways in which plain language practices interacts with the social justice concerns of technical communication. It’s important to know that plain language is not a “get out of jail free” card for technical communicators. Plain language for plain language’s sake does not automatically constitute ethical communication practices.
“…the plain-language movement offers strong, publicly anchored strategies of communication that scholars and practitioners can explore as a potential way to advance social justice work, but they must constantly interrogate their practices and assumptions, always remaining alert to the way plain language may deflect attention from systemic and social issues.”
Dreher lays out how integration of plain language can bolster the social justice aims of tech comm, in our theory and our pedagogy, but is careful to say that plain language is not enough. Dreher warns against leaning too heavily on MERELY plain language standards, and these matters should always be examined with a critical eye.
“In practical terms, instructors can show that technical communication expertise is central to the plain-language movement, which is well-anchored and recognizable across fields (business, law, health, the sciences) and across the globe”
How to begin to think about Anti-Racist Pedagogies
At this point in 2022, if you’ve been paying any kind of attention to the popular discourse around race in America, you’ll have heard the sentiment that ‘it is not enough to not be racist. We must also be anti-racist.’ While it may be a newish concept in the zeitgeist at large, anti-racism has been discussed in academia for decades, even if it’s only now becoming a term that laypeople recognize.
If it’s possible for academia to have rock stars, Ibram X. Kendi is one. New York Times bestselling author, founding director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University, professor of history and international relations, and golden child of the anti-racist movement, he has been quoted (many many) times as saying (in his 2019 book How to Be an Anti-Racist):
“The only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it—and then dismantle it.”
This explains why, then, we continue to struggle to have these tough conversations in our classrooms. For all our good intentions to dismantle entire infrastructures built on race-based violence, our natural tendencies to unite rather than divide are causing us to miss a crucial element in our daily discourse around race in the classroom. We are not naming and shaming.
“Any radical pedagogy must insist that everyone’s presence is acknowledged. That insistence cannot be simply stated. It has to be demonstrated through pedagogical practices.”
-bell hooks
In her study Inclusive Practices in the Technical Communication Classroom, Jessica Edwards wanted to explore why, despite improvements in access, BIPOC still struggle in the education system. Some of her study looked at the actual language around race in classrooms, interviewing real professors and real students about terms like “diversity” and “pedagogy” and “content.” Part of what she found is that professors generally had a good (surface-level) understanding of the ideas. The students were a different story altogether.
Even when provided with definitions, and even when students had a working understanding of these concepts related to the anti-racism, students still struggled to talk about them. Edwards wrote “Overall, students made tangential connections between diversity and history, but struggled to pin down a clear point, despite being provided with a definition…” These are terms and concepts that students should have been exposed to for several years now, and concepts that BIPOC students should be intimately familiar with both professionally and, regrettably, personally. Having the conversation, however, was clearly something that the students were not practiced in.
So, what do we as technical communicators do about this? It’s been accepted by the field (I think) that we have the capacity to make meaningful change in the world and in our classrooms, and since we have that great power, we also have that great responsibility. Since we can, we now must. But what, exactly, do we do?
Edwards, after all her hard work, concluded on an inference. “It can be inferred that more directed discussion about race and diversity would be useful to help students contextualize the ideas (emphasis added).” It’s not enough to know the terms and concepts. We have to have pointed, difficult, awkward, uncouth conversations in our classrooms about race and diversity. It has to be a part of our curriculum in a much deeper way.
The common refrain (usually from white people) is that not everything has to do with race. BIPOC will tell you that yes, it does. People of color simply cannot ‘escape’ race. It’s a part of everything that we do. Race always has something to do with it. We know that race has its finger on how we understand the world, and how the world understands us. So why is it still anathema to point that out in our classrooms?
Edwards wrote “…foundational perspectives are about how ‘the background characteristics of students and faculty affect their understanding of events, issues, and concepts…” and for everyone, not just BIPOC, our social and cultural concept of race is a key component to our foundational perspectives. And therefore, we have to just actually talk about it. “[Our] pedagogy, then, must be a strategy that infuses the foundational with theory and specific content in order to be effective (emphasis added again).”
To be effective technical communicators, ethical and justice-minded educators, and just plain old good citizens, we must get over ourselves. We have to have the conversations that our upbringing, polite society, and maybe even the administration tells us that we should stay away from. We are members of an institution that is not just cranking out good little workers.
Universities are meant to make us members of a good, just, and fruitful society. If you’ll allow me to wax dramatic for just a moment… I taught my students the term ‘alma mater’ this semester. This old-timey Latin term for university literally translates to “soul mother.” We’re in charge of these kids’ souls. How can we let our own fear get in the way of their growth?
November 16, 2022
Who Educates the Educators?
Despite decades of research on Black Language, its survival since enslavement, and its linguistic imprint on the nation and globe, Black people and Black Language scholars keep having to remind y’all that it is a legit language. (Baker-Bell)
Have you ever heard an author pop off so loud you hear it through the page?
Baker-Bell’s chapters in her book Linguistic Justice are each better than the next, but the overall tone matches the tone of the other readings from this semester: technical communicators should be concerned with, and are natural advocates for social justice concerns. The readings tell us at various times that we can, should, or must do this kind of advocacy work.
“It is important to consider how technical communication can continue to help advocate for diverse needs. Doing so may help us, as scholars and those who are committed to social justice, better connect diversity and advocacy in an effort to push against structural oppression.” (Edwards)
There must be efforts, both institutionally and in the classroom, that go beyond paying lip service to diversity and diverse practices to more intentional and engaged approaches… I am reminded of how this work has to be intentional, multifaceted, and outreach drive to continually consider the connections between the university and the community. (Edwards)
The authors even tell us about the ways we can convince future technical communicators that this work is important. There are multiple strategies for pedagogies that center social justice, that name and shame systems of power, and that encourage students to see their work as advocacy. The texts explain that this is not merely about language, and that it is actively harmful to ignore these topics.
… using this approach did result in fostering a greater awareness of the advocacy embedded in everyday texts and the potential power and responsibility that technical and professional communicators have (the power of media knowledge, values and action). (Warren-Riley)
Telling children that While Mainstream English is needed for survival can no longer be the answer, especially as we are witnessing Black people being mishandled, discriminated against, and murdered while using White Mainstream English, and in some cases, before they even open their mouths. (Baker-Bell)
…any instruction that emphasizes the importance of White Mainstream English over all other linguistic forms is especially dangerous for Black students, and other linguistically marginalized students of color, as it communicates to them that being Black and speaking in Black Language are insufficient. (Baker-Bell)
But then, if we believe the experts like Baker-Bell, hooks, Johnson, and many many others, what about us? Why do we have to wait to pass the torch to the next wave? What about the educators who are supposed to be teaching this future generation of technical communicators?
I argue that we cannot do that. We cannot wait to merely teach a future generation to be just, anti-racist technical communicators. Because if we fail to engage with these pedagogies in our own practices, we’re not just letting down BIPOC students. We are upholding the systems that oppress them.
No doubt, the anti-Black Linguistic Racism that is used to diminish Black Language and Black students in schools is not yet separate from the rampant and deliberate anti-Black racism and violence inflicted upon Black people in society… Linguistic Justice is a call to action: a call to radically imagine and create a world free of anti-blackness. (Baker-Bell)
[Linguistic Justice] is an antiracist approach to language and literacy education. It is about dismantling Anti-Black Linguistic Racism and white linguistic hegemony and supremacy in classrooms and in the world. (Baker-Bell)
How can we make the argument that all texts are imbued with values, then continue to use the texts that uphold the values of white supremacy with no comment? When we tell students that White Mainstream English is how to get yourself taken seriously in professional or academic settings, we are telling them that it’s more important to support the systems of white supremacy than it is to educate the educators. When we refuse to engage with anti-racist pedagogies, we are not being neutral. We are not taking some kind of ‘middle-of-the-road’ stance between traditional education and ‘wokeness’. We are, instead, upholding the values that underpin all of these systems. And if we’re telling students that the systems in question are founded in white supremacy (which they are), then what are students supposed to learn from that?