Still Need My Reasoning Skills
Like so many teachers of writing, I devote countless hours to providing feedback in response to student work with the intention of supporting writers as they develop and expand their writing experiences. One of my top priorities is guiding students as they take ownership of their learning while simultaneously helping them gain confidence as writers.
When commenting on student work, I’m first thinking about the student as a writer — the person — and providing feedback in response to what I know about the individual. I’ve never been a teacher who has used a “red pen” and marked up text — receiving “corrections” of this sort hasn’t proven beneficial in helping me grow or improve as a writer. Rather, I appreciate feedback which responds to my writing as a reader and prompts me to consider possible revisions and edits.
More often than not, my experience with writing assistance tools has been punitive or as a way for teachers to “catch” students plagiarizing — as a sort of “gotcha” and at first I was hesitant to submit a piece of my writing for review by an AI tool. However, I decided to put an academic paper I wrote for a graduate-level course this past spring — March 2020 — through EasyBib/Chegg (formerly WriteLab) to see what I might be able to learn about my writing.
EasyBib/Chegg claims to “check [my] paper for grammar and plagiarism” so I created an account and prepared to submit my writing for feedback. I wasn’t completely comfortable with the fine print that reads “The papers you upload will be added to our plagiarism database and will be used internally to improve plagiarism results” (EasyBib, a Chegg Service), but I understand that in an effort to improve the accuracy of the tool they are collecting as much data and information as possible. So, I removed the “header” of my paper, pasted the writing into the text box, and clicked “Check my paper.”
Within a few seconds, I received 29 grammar suggestions and was informed that “18% of [my] paper matches public sources” which could be considered plagiarism. Here are a few examples of the type of feedback I received:
A sentence in the first paragraph of my paper reads: “Pinker’s observation that people possess an innate desire to acquire and communicate with language resonates with me as an individual and as an educator.”
Suggestion: I’m missing an introductory comma after ‘s — Pinker’s. Clearly I do not need an introductory comma in this sentence. In order to be more concise, I should “try saying speak with” instead of “communicate with” which changes the intended meaning of my words. In this context, I am using “communicate with” to encompass more than just spoken language.
And, here’s another suggestion for concision: “You might be able to rephrase this more simply. Experiment with replacing “additionally” with “even more than that,” “even more than this,” “beyond that,” or “beyond this.” Then read both versions aloud. Which do you prefer?” I’m uncertain about how “even more than that” is more concise than “additionally.”
Interestingly, the feedback I received about possible plagiarism in my paper were all examples of direct text evidence with citations. For each instance of possible plagiarism, EasyBib/Chegg includes a link to a public source that matches, or proves to be similar, to my writing. The “matches” took me to blog posts on Word Press and presentations on SlideShare where writers had cited similar evidence. The possible instances of “plagiarism” in my academic paper are quoted and cited from original sources and I’m confident that I didn’t violate academic integrity in my writing.
At this point, I’m not convinced that artificial intelligence writing assistance tools are beneficial for helping me improve the quality of my writing. For each suggestion, I relied on my human sense of reason to determine whether or not the recommendation was appropriate and applicable for the context of what I am intending to communicate in my writing.
