A Review of 2020: An NWP AOTC Survey of the Writing Assistance Tools
On July 25, 2020, the National Writing Project launched a year-long campaign of affiliate teacher consultants from around the nation to write about how they might stay “Ahead of the Code.” Comprising affiliates from Ohio, California, Idaho, and Michigan, teacher-writers were invited “to observe, reflect on, and study (along with our students), the potential of this growing area of educational technology to benefit or to limit student learning” (Writing Project, 2020). Perhaps unsurprising, because of our work as teacher-writers, the initial thoughts many teachers had toward writing assistance tools can be summed up in a single word: skeptical.
From personal experience and a place of warmth, teacher-writer Ritu Champlin, struggled with the intangibles that writing assistive technology couldn’t manage to duplicate. She noted:
- “I can recognize their voice more readily than an online program and may be able to better tell what they meant in their writing in order to help them revise”;
- “…it seems that [writing assistance tools] are more focused on the changes that a student needs to make than praising what a student is already doing well”; and
- “Certainly, Turnitin.com didn’t spend the first two weeks of school trying to build a classroom community like I did. I know my students and I know the uniqueness of their writing, something an artificial intelligent writing tool does not” (Champlin, 2020).
Noé J. Almendáriz summed his initial thoughts about artificial intelligence and writing assistance tools in a series of compelling “buts”:
- “Students will benefit from immediate feedback and suggestions, but it is my responsibility to coach them through sorting and making sense of the input;”
- “The recommendations may overwhelm students, but it is up to educators to ensure the process does not silence them;” and
- “The revision process, seemingly tedious at first, strengthens arguments and ideas, but students benefit from modeling and coaching” (Almendáriz, 2020).
In her experience of writing with students, teacher-writer Kate Rowley wondered:
- “Can we decolonize classroom spaces while using Grammarly.com?”;
- “Does easybib.com just allow me to shift the blame of centering on whiteness to a machine?”; and
- “How can we embolden and encourage students to create writing so beautiful that we eagerly tweet, re-tweet, copy, and spread it?” (Rowley, 2020).
For these teacher-writers (and myself), the cards were stacked against writing assistance tools and artificially intelligent feedback programs.
Yet, with an open mind and a penchant for action research, we dug into writing assistance tools with our students and with each other. It was a challenge for us all as we taught our classes in the beginning of the school year on shaky ground among the unknown environments we would face during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though our approaches were varied, a year of focused action research has yielded some interesting results.
Among the results that were most intriguing were those that lead to a confluence of teacher and student experiences. It is in these spaces where it seems writing assistance tools offer the most promise — practicality and authenticity.
One teacher-writer, Amy Hoying, put writing assistance tools to the test by surveying her students on their “likes” and “dislikes” regarding specific online artificial intelligence writing programs. The following is a list of likes and dislikes students had about Grammarly and compares them to Ahead of the Code teacher-writer experiences using the same tool:
Grammarly Survey (Hoying, 2020)
Student Perceptions
Likes:
“I love this tool. It helps so much when I am writing. Not only with my spelling, but with commas and overall grammar errors.”
“It fixes all my papers and I don’t even need to go to a website to check my work.”
Dislikes:
“Sometimes I do not agree with its suggestions in the context of my writing and it gets annoying because it will keep highlighting the ‘error.’”
“Sometimes, suggestions can only be unlocked if you have the premium or plus version and other times words are taken out of context.”
Likes:
“Grammarly assistant reminds and recommends and encourages me to pause and reflect and revise my work” (Almendáriz, 2020).
“Users do not have to start up a new program or click through files to get feedback. It is consistent and ever-present. So once it is downloaded, using it is seamless and automatic” (Fowler, 2020).
Ahead of the Code Teacher Perceptions
Dislikes:
“Grammarly is more useful for an independent writer. Some tools should be automated, providing practice in revision techniques and providing quick instructional videos to demonstrate certain writing traits” (Fowler, 2020).
“Here is my problem with it: the suggestions are proofreading suggestions. They only improve the writing for mechanics” (Tetrick, 2020).
Though the table above focuses on one writing assistance tool, Grammarly, a deeper review reveals much of the same. Our year-long experiment and relatively informal study around writing assistance tools finds these digital tools to be useful, but not in isolation.
Those in the study tend to agree that teacher-writers who enter into conversations about writing with students saw greater strides in their writing than those who leaned on the use of artificial intelligence alone. Granted, as teacher-writers, we may be biased given personal experiences with our writing processes. Still, we acknowledge that writing assistance tools have their place in the messiness that is a writer’s process, however, artificial intelligence alone does automatically make a better writer. Writing is complex. A process of writing is not a series of if/then statements, it is unique for every writer. Writing assistance tools are useful, though not without their own cultural, social, and traditional biases. Writers need mentors. Writers need authentic audiences. Writers need teachers. Writing assistance tools have not yet found a way to emulate personal, relevant, and meaningful feedback to help move a writer forward.
References:
Almendáriz, Noé J. “For the Love of Feedback.” Medium, 25 Aug. 2020, https://medium.com/ahead-of-the-code/for-the-love-of-feedback-5b0886092147.
Champlin, Ritu. “5 Things I Can Do For My Students’ Writing That ‘Turnitin’ Can’t.” Medium, 22 Aug. 2020, https://medium.com/ahead-of-the-code/5-things-i-can-do-for-my-students-writing-that-turnitin-can-t-5f1024331b7a.
Fowler, Ms Taiesha. “Digital Writing Tools — Grammarly & Usefulness of Its Feedback.” Medium, 17 Sept. 2020, https://medium.com/ahead-of-the-code/digital-writing-tools-grammarly-usefulness-of-its-feedback-17656d9747f5.
Hoying, Amy. “And The Survey Says . . .” Medium, 10 Dec. 2020, https://medium.com/ahead-of-the-code/and-the-survey-says-4bc14e4c0e07.
Project, Writing. “Writing Teachers Working to Stay Ahead-of-the-Code.” Medium, 22 Aug. 2020, https://medium.com/ahead-of-the-code/writing-teachers-working-to-stay-ahead-of-the-code-5baa6ee361b2.
Rowley, Kate. “Jesus Govia’s ‘Bruh’ Is Why Computers Can’t Replace Writers.” Medium, 29 Jan. 2021, https://medium.com/ahead-of-the-code/jesus-govias-bruh-for-joy-of-language-e9f5cfe22a52.
Tetrick, Amber. “Ok, I Got Grammarly to Work.” Medium, 23 Aug. 2020, https://medium.com/ahead-of-the-code/ok-i-got-grammarly-to-work-51afa671c6f9.
