Seed #3: My Relationship to AI as a Writer and Teacher

   A flower still growing: my thoughts on AI in writing and teaching

My stance on AI for the purpose of teaching writing is one that is still developing and shifts day-by-day. For a long time I was completely against the use of AI and many conversations I encountered about AI in the classroom involved sniffing out cheating or banning it outright. It has been a challenge for me as an up-and-coming teacher to consider the uses of AI and work through complex feelings surrounding ethical usage.

     That being said, engaging in these conversations and sifting through readings that focus on AI usage that centers human voices and experiences has eased some of my concerns. Estep’s Centering Compassion in the age of AI speaks to my outlook on AI as well as my thoughts on teaching as a whole. “After all, English is not about policing artificial intelligence; English is the act of cultivating compassionate awareness for others, in others, and for ourselves through reading, writing, and teaching.” (Estep, pg 23) Trying to monitor student’s AI use in order to catch cheating is a futile endeavor that only creates a “witch hunt” environment within the classroom. We cannot control how our students approach AI, nor can we fully know whether or not artificial intelligence is being used in their work. We cannot just assume the laziness of our students and move on with a deficit mindset about their use of AI. “In fact, social psychologist Devon Price (2021) argues that what we perceive as laziness is in fact a paralysis caused by being confused or overwhelmed or caring deeply about a thing.” (Estep, pg 24) Approaching students with curiosity, compassion, and resources about responsible use will ultimately (hopefully) result in students who think critically about their relationship to writing and technology.

    Accepting that AI is and will continue to be a large part of my life as a teacher has been a strange sort of grieving process, but it has helped me challenge myself to think critically about its role in education. I used to have a “head in the sand” approach to AI, but now I feel some excitement about how it could make the writing process more accessible to young writers. I think that it is necessary to incorporate AI into teaching writing, but it should be utilized in a way that makes students think critically about their own usage. I do not consider myself pro-AI, but I am not completely against it either. In order to respect student agency we must encourage our students to find their own relationship to artificial intelligence through building it into how we teach the writing process. Human-centered writing will always be my priority, but that does not mean that the writing process has no room for AI.

Where, if anywhere, should AI be used? In what capacity?

There is no point in the writing process where I believe AI necessarily should be used, but I think it can be used in the following capacities:

• Assisting with expanding ideas or “getting thoughts in order”

This assistance should only come after the writer has already done some writing or brainstorming

and needs help bouncing off their thoughts or getting to the root of their point.

• Helping to proofread or catch grammar mistakes

• Providing feedback 

The feedback given by AI should never replace human feedback or collaboration within writing.

• Creating false examples for students to critically analyze where AI went wrong or to test reading

• comprehension. 

I am open to considering new uses for AI, and I am sure there are other uses that I haven’t considered,

but these limited uses are where I stand on acceptable use.

I think that all of these points should only come after human writing has occurred,

and should be used sparingly and looked at critically.

The blooms in the garden bed: my current values on writing and teaching

Jessica Estep’s Compassion and AI article and Annette Vee’s AI and Student Agency strongly reflect my

values about writing and teaching. While I am not a fan of AI, I don’t appreciate schools focusing on

trying to catch students using it like we’re living in The Crucible. This policing approach to AI ignores

student agency, assumes laziness, and disregards the challenges our students face to navigate rapidly

evolving technologies. Estep’s focus on compassion and Vee’s focus on agency encompass my current

outlook on teaching. “If we set aside the easy excuse of laziness, we see that a lot of my (our) students

struggle to write because they are hesitant to explore their individual experiences- because they assume

no one cares.” (Estep, pg 25) Assuming that students are lazy or don’t care about the work not only builds

a deficit mindset, it also ignores the level of vulnerability that we are asking students to show us through

writing. My philosophy as a writer, teacher, and human being focuses on approaching people with

curiosity and a desire for understanding, even if I don’t think I’ll agree or resonate with them.As an educator I also want to respect that my students are complete human beings that deserve

the same degree of compassion, patience, and respect that I wish for myself. I am not an all-knowing

being trying to impart my wisdom onto the impressionable youths; I am simply an educator with content

knowledge who is teaching and learning alongside my students as they teach and learn from me.

“We don’t know more about AI than students do; in many cases, we know less. But we do know about

our subjects and other contexts for AI. Coming to the table with different expertise regarding AI, we can

learn from each other through honest dialogue and exploration.” (Vee) I am familiar with the frustration of

knowing more about a subject or technology than an elder, but being forced to listen to them try to impart

their stances onto me. Our students are growing up with this technology which gives them insights on it

that us adults simply do not have. It’s not up to me to decide what my students should think or feel about

AI, or about anything. Students are already thinking about and developing their own relationships with AI,

and they may have insights that we have not considered. My love of teaching and writing comes from a

love of learning about others and fostering curiosity. As Vee’s article emphasizes, we should be focused on

helping our students figure out who they are as writers and users of technology, and that can’t happen

unless we engage them in complex conversations and listen to what they have to say. I struggle to view

myself as an authority figure, but I can see myself as a leader acting as a "guide on the side" pushing

students to challenge themselves and follow their interests.

For more on student perspectives on AI, check out this article from Harvard Usable Knowledge

my self-image as an educator, from my poem:

the syndrome: an ode to my inadequacies

Seeds and fertilizers: my experiences and thoughts on readings

I don’t think any of the readings so far necessarily go too far, although I do challenge Furze’s examples of how “flattening the writing process” can be beneficial. I mostly agree with the article, however I disagree that it’s a positive thing that AI is being used more and more for marketing as it is removing job opportunities for many artists and graphic designers. “There are other times when it might be expedient and effective to flatten the process of writing, such as when your boss sends you an email that you don’t know how to respond to politely, or when you have to produce a piece of

writing that is purely functional, conveying information as quickly as possible.” (Furze) I may be alone in this stance, but I don’t think time is such a precious resource that we should fully flatten the writing process in this way. I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to use AI for this more simplified use of writing, but allowing it to take over those processes completely.

I will not lie or pretend that I have never “messed around” with AI as a writer. There have been times when, early in the writing process, I struggled to organize my thoughts into one cohesive argument to guide an academic paper. I have found that writing out the “seeds” of my ideas, then feeding them into an LLM helped me find a through line to center my thoughts. For a long time I felt guilty about using AI, even though my use centered my own ideas and writing. This sense of shame about AI only bolstered my original stance that it should be outright banned because if I was tempted by the efficiency of AI, certainly students would be unable to resist the simplicity it offers. Now I view my previous stance as one led by fear, shame, and a deficit mindset that students would always go for the path of least resistance no matter the task. Reading about Magliozze & Peterson’s AI in the Classroom workshop model helped me understand that using AI in the writing process can be exciting and there are uses that encourage students to think critically about how and when it can be helpful to them.