{"title":"Equitable writing classrooms and programs in the shadow of AI","authors":"Megan McIntyre","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Each year, in TA orientation, in the practicum course, and in professional development sessions, I ask TAs and instructors to consider what is, for me, the key question at the heart of our work as writing teachers: what do we owe our students? And a related and equally important question: what do we owe ourselves? In 2024, just over two years into the public existence of OpenAI's ChatGPT, the contexts for these questions are perhaps more complicated than ever, but I think the answers are mostly the same: we owe our students equitable classrooms, space to try and to fail, compassion and care, and authentic engagement. We owe them the rights our discipline affirmed almost fifty years ago when CCCC adopted Students’ Right to Their Own Language as the official position of the largest organization of writing teachers in the world. This article reviews an approach to the current Generative AI moment that is rooted in these commitments and reflects an approach I call “informed refusal,” which allows us to acknowledge the existence of generative AI without requiring students to use generative AI products. We can continue to teach critical literacies and attend to the things that make first-year writing classrooms unique, especially our attention to individualized feedback on students’ writing and our attention to helping students build self-efficacy via sustainable writing processes and reflective habits of mind. At the same time, I argue against the adoption of detectors and other writing surveillance technologies because of the ways that such tools reinforce overly simplistic notions of plagiarism (Moore-Howard) and can harm our relationships with students.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 102908"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Composition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755461524000847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Each year, in TA orientation, in the practicum course, and in professional development sessions, I ask TAs and instructors to consider what is, for me, the key question at the heart of our work as writing teachers: what do we owe our students? And a related and equally important question: what do we owe ourselves? In 2024, just over two years into the public existence of OpenAI's ChatGPT, the contexts for these questions are perhaps more complicated than ever, but I think the answers are mostly the same: we owe our students equitable classrooms, space to try and to fail, compassion and care, and authentic engagement. We owe them the rights our discipline affirmed almost fifty years ago when CCCC adopted Students’ Right to Their Own Language as the official position of the largest organization of writing teachers in the world. This article reviews an approach to the current Generative AI moment that is rooted in these commitments and reflects an approach I call “informed refusal,” which allows us to acknowledge the existence of generative AI without requiring students to use generative AI products. We can continue to teach critical literacies and attend to the things that make first-year writing classrooms unique, especially our attention to individualized feedback on students’ writing and our attention to helping students build self-efficacy via sustainable writing processes and reflective habits of mind. At the same time, I argue against the adoption of detectors and other writing surveillance technologies because of the ways that such tools reinforce overly simplistic notions of plagiarism (Moore-Howard) and can harm our relationships with students.
期刊介绍:
Computers and Composition: An International Journal is devoted to exploring the use of computers in writing classes, writing programs, and writing research. It provides a forum for discussing issues connected with writing and computer use. It also offers information about integrating computers into writing programs on the basis of sound theoretical and pedagogical decisions, and empirical evidence. It welcomes articles, reviews, and letters to the Editors that may be of interest to readers, including descriptions of computer-aided writing and/or reading instruction, discussions of topics related to computer use of software development; explorations of controversial ethical, legal, or social issues related to the use of computers in writing programs.