Equitable writing classrooms and programs in the shadow of AI

Q1 Arts and Humanities Computers and Composition Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102908
Megan McIntyre
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Computers and Composition
Computers and Composition Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
25 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Coexisting with ChatGPT: Evaluating a tool for AI-based paper revision Objectivity bias in first-year research writing: The impact of perceived neutrality in an age of mistrust Drafting defensively, documenting authorship: An analysis of Draftback and Grammarly Authorship Editorial Board All the attention, all the time: How first-year students experience writing in a horizontal digital ecosystem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1