For the student who can't get started on the blank page, what would you think about "Coach me through a brainstorming process that will help me write my essay" instead of "Write a first draft of my essay for me" approach?
I’ve been in situations where students come to office hours and want that coaching. I debate all the time if I’m actually helping or hindering the student in that context. The issue for many isn’t a lack of ability, but confidence. I would want to explore if an AI coach actually built a student’s confidence or if relying on a synthetic coach hindered their growth. Would an AI tell a student that they don’t need its help anymore and to trust themselves?
Good questions! Might some students come back to the same kind of coaching again and again, while others learn from the coaching and grow out of it over time? I'm guessing it would vary by student.
Thanks for connecting to Lamott! I love that book and I try to teach her "Shitty First Drafts" in all of my FYC classes. And great idea for using an LLM to synthesize some things for students at the end of the term!
I love the almost-rhyme in your concluding sentence of “spark” and “art” (assonance if not slant rhyme). That sound play, whether intentional or not, is one of the things that makes human writing more interesting than machine writing.
I will apply ideas from your column. In my first year seminar I hold group office hours where 4-8 students bring their thesis statements and we workshop them. This exposes the process of developing ideas and how it’s not easy but can be rewarding as one puzzles through one’s thoughts. They offer suggestions before I do. It builds community, exposes the writing process. Students feel supported and are more open to the work—a key for avoiding generative AI.
You are onto something important. In my experience experimenting with AI, I’ve found that using AI at the start of a writing project only after I feel like I have a strong sense of what I want to say—an idea or an angle. Sometimes the bot can help me see other angles just through a chat. Writing hasn’t even begun yet in terms of drafting. If, say, I wanted to write about cell division, I would need to have a really good understanding of the topic and would have a session shuttling between bot chats and source searches—read, read, read.
As I become clearer about what I’m thinking, I usually try to write an intro and conclusion to test myself and find out whether I am in the drivers seat. Doing this with the bot is counterproductive for me. I’m not sure I would understand that if I hadn’t experimented. It just doesn’t work to turn to the bot too early.
Another way of saying this—if I’m not ready to talk purposefully WITH A HUMAN about a fully thought out angle on writing a piece for a purpose with some idea of who I think might like or benefit from, I’m not ready to pull in the bot to do anything with my text. That doesn’t mean I can’t use it to help me think through ideas or explore a variety of ways of expressing a phrase or a sentence.
If I am working on a project and I need human feedback but I turn to the bot, I made a wrong turn. Teachers need to guide students through experience with the bot at all stages of text production so they learn how it can work for or against them.
I am opposed to changes being made by AI to my written copy. In my limited experience, any of these kinds of changes are less suitable that the original version, because AI is not inventive or able to express ideas in a better clarified way. It must be a very poor quality of composition to which it can make useful changes. Perhaps that is what it is intended to do--to make poor explanation from less proficient writers into something one can simply understand even though some of the meaning is lost. That is not the kind of written quality that I seek, and probably many other professional writers are the same. I don't write first drafts but edit my writings until I am satisfied, so there is no shit being thrown around.
For the student who can't get started on the blank page, what would you think about "Coach me through a brainstorming process that will help me write my essay" instead of "Write a first draft of my essay for me" approach?
I’ve been in situations where students come to office hours and want that coaching. I debate all the time if I’m actually helping or hindering the student in that context. The issue for many isn’t a lack of ability, but confidence. I would want to explore if an AI coach actually built a student’s confidence or if relying on a synthetic coach hindered their growth. Would an AI tell a student that they don’t need its help anymore and to trust themselves?
Good questions! Might some students come back to the same kind of coaching again and again, while others learn from the coaching and grow out of it over time? I'm guessing it would vary by student.
FWIW, when I just tried this with ChatGPT, I got a friendly "You've got this!" at the end our interaction. https://chatgpt.com/share/89dff4a7-d8e8-4652-9142-12896eb92104
Thanks for connecting to Lamott! I love that book and I try to teach her "Shitty First Drafts" in all of my FYC classes. And great idea for using an LLM to synthesize some things for students at the end of the term!
Thanks, Annette!
I love the almost-rhyme in your concluding sentence of “spark” and “art” (assonance if not slant rhyme). That sound play, whether intentional or not, is one of the things that makes human writing more interesting than machine writing.
I will apply ideas from your column. In my first year seminar I hold group office hours where 4-8 students bring their thesis statements and we workshop them. This exposes the process of developing ideas and how it’s not easy but can be rewarding as one puzzles through one’s thoughts. They offer suggestions before I do. It builds community, exposes the writing process. Students feel supported and are more open to the work—a key for avoiding generative AI.
You are onto something important. In my experience experimenting with AI, I’ve found that using AI at the start of a writing project only after I feel like I have a strong sense of what I want to say—an idea or an angle. Sometimes the bot can help me see other angles just through a chat. Writing hasn’t even begun yet in terms of drafting. If, say, I wanted to write about cell division, I would need to have a really good understanding of the topic and would have a session shuttling between bot chats and source searches—read, read, read.
As I become clearer about what I’m thinking, I usually try to write an intro and conclusion to test myself and find out whether I am in the drivers seat. Doing this with the bot is counterproductive for me. I’m not sure I would understand that if I hadn’t experimented. It just doesn’t work to turn to the bot too early.
Another way of saying this—if I’m not ready to talk purposefully WITH A HUMAN about a fully thought out angle on writing a piece for a purpose with some idea of who I think might like or benefit from, I’m not ready to pull in the bot to do anything with my text. That doesn’t mean I can’t use it to help me think through ideas or explore a variety of ways of expressing a phrase or a sentence.
If I am working on a project and I need human feedback but I turn to the bot, I made a wrong turn. Teachers need to guide students through experience with the bot at all stages of text production so they learn how it can work for or against them.
It’s all about the “editing” adventure, in multiple steps, and towards the end, most of my students leave Ai behind and finish up on their own.
I am opposed to changes being made by AI to my written copy. In my limited experience, any of these kinds of changes are less suitable that the original version, because AI is not inventive or able to express ideas in a better clarified way. It must be a very poor quality of composition to which it can make useful changes. Perhaps that is what it is intended to do--to make poor explanation from less proficient writers into something one can simply understand even though some of the meaning is lost. That is not the kind of written quality that I seek, and probably many other professional writers are the same. I don't write first drafts but edit my writings until I am satisfied, so there is no shit being thrown around.