Prince George, Canada, Sep 4 (The Conversation) As a new academic season commences, the advent of large language models (LLMs) brings about complex discussions around learning, thought processes, plagiarism, and authorship for educators.
There is now a pressing demand for refreshed methodologies in assignments and evaluations. Student submissions utilizing LLM technology have added workloads and concerns for educators, leaving them grappling with apprehension.
In my role as an assistant professor of English, where my research delves into the chronicles of writing and its educational methods, I have frequently engaged in dialogues within higher education institutions regarding this pressing issue.
The immediate challenge posed by LLMs within educational settings is part of a more profound truth. For an extended period, academia has misdiagnosed students’ difficulties with writing as mental shortcomings, rather than recognizing that writing is a cognitively demanding tool for thought.
Writing equips individuals with the ability to comprehend their ideas with clarity. For anyone engaged in cognitive processes and creativity — especially in educational institutions — writing should be taught with this understanding in mind.
Questioning AI's Role in Writing Given the functionalities and limitations of LLMs, we must question why we refer to this process as “writing” — as in, “a student used an LLM to write their paper.” LLM technology, at best, produces a replica of a text, generating output that mimics textual conventions based on its training data.
Such output, crafted for academic purposes, mirrors the conventional academic English that has long dominated educational institutions. This style of writing has been associated with a particular relationship to truth.
There is evident frustration and discontent aimed at students who incorporate LLM output into their writing. This seems rooted in the perception that such practices undermine the truth-bound nature of academic writing that's been upheld for years.
The existence of LLMs points out that academic writing isn’t an “absolute.” Instead, it highlights how writing is a social construct, a reality that the academic world has historically resisted acknowledging.
Roots in History and Society The adoption of standard academic writing is a deliberate choice. It represents a writing style pervasive in academia, presumed as both default and “correct.”
The dilemmas wrought by LLM technology in written communication are deeply interwoven with historical and societal questions, probing the very essence of what writing signifies.
From my research perspective, the dual strands of writing education, focusing on both literary and technical communication, have persisted since the 19th-century English-speaking academy. Within the dynamics of the British Empire, these remained tools of conservatism.
The reverence for canonical British literature coupled with the teaching of utilitarian language, supposedly neutral but not truly so, has led to a version of writing that over-emphasizes the completed work.
Writing in Context Today, technical “correctness” is equated with “good” writing, which in turn suggests that a capable mind produces “good” work. Conversely, “bad writing” implies a less capable intellect, unsuited for academic pursuits.
Writing scholars have indicated that academia’s obsession with correctness often upholds inequities intertwined with colonial and racial issues.
Correctness, as discussed by writing scholars, is inherently subjective and context-dependent. For example, a text like “ill c u l8r” may have been perfectly acceptable in a 2008 text message. In a different setting, including current text exchanges, it may be seen as odd or unclear.
When academic writing skills are linked to student intelligence, it’s unsurprising that some might resort to LLMs.
Rethinking the Finished Product Because LLMs can replicate standard academic writing, they provide a platform for reevaluating perceptions of completed written work. If professors only care about producing a “correct” text, it stands to reason that a machine could fulfill that need.
However, to foster teaching that nurtures student inquiry and critical thinking, particularly regarding oppressive systems, educators must redefine writing beyond “correct” academic English.
Educators should view student writing within its social milieu, requiring comprehension from students, but also requiring instructors to genuinely listen.
Without an overhaul of Western academic attitudes towards writing, there is a risk of alienating students from their potential for innovative thinking and understanding, due to a growing dependency on LLMs.
Redefining Writing Reconsidering writing involves allowing students to submit works-in-progress, with instructors offering feedback on non-graded drafts, and creating assignments that unpack the writing process.
This approach also entails teaching students a new writing strategy that highlights power dynamics involved in teaching writing and embraces creativity — an underutilized rhetorical concept in Western education systems. Creativity encompasses numerous considerations, including audience, relationships, and context.
Writing experts must contribute to AI-policy creation, and the implications of their research deserve broader consideration. Without the inclusion of writing specialists in the deployment of LLMs at universities, the future of academic writing might stagnate with unchallenged, preconceived notions.
We must reposition writing in academia, or risk students’ alienation from their writing capabilities. The study of writing is uniquely poised to aid educational institutions in navigating these critical issues. (The Conversation) RD RD
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
