Where is the Heart of Artificial Intelligence in Revision?
Since September, I’ve been observing my high school students and their use of Writable. We have used it as a tool to help with late-process and in-process revision on co-authored arguments, reflective narratives, and on-demand writing.
Generally speaking, students struggle to embrace revision on the writing tasks they encounter in the classroom. Recognizing revision as the “work” of writing, many students see writing as just that: work. For reasons too many to share here, I don’t believe student views on in-school writing is their fault. If teachers of writing want students to see revision as a way to improve their initial draft they must have more at stake than just another graded assignment. They need agency and authenticity.
Similarly, AI-assisted revision tools work better when integrated authentically. One struggle my students have is envisioning where they would use Writable beyond a school-assigned revision task.
In truth, it is my struggle as well.
My students are willing to engage in revision if assigned, but it isn’t the go-to AI tool I had hoped for at the beginning of the year. As a designer of writing lessons that engage students, I am reminded of Zaretta Hammond’s assertion that, “authentic engagement begins with remembering that we are wired to connect with one another” (Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain, p. 50). A little brain research helps me to connect what moves writing forward during revision — we are, indeed, wired to connect with one another.
Finding connection
Connection has been a missing piece for me and my students during the past few months. Though we are physically disconnected during our remote learning environment I’ve noticed the distances close when a human connectedness reaches through Zoom screens and tugs at the heart of a writing student who is invested in the writing they create. Writable seems to put a wedge between my students and me. For us, it feels like Writable is an interloper.
Meaningful conversations about writing happen often in my classroom. We engage with words. We tap into emotions. We write in ways that corral our truths. We are brave to share our raw words in process and find ways to develop those ideas. There is a human connection in the revision work my students and I engage in. The writers in my care write for themselves first, then we work to deepen those ideas for audiences in other contexts.
When using Writable for revision our conversations revolved around why the AI was commenting the way it was and how it impacted writing in ways that didn’t match the writer’s intent. Though the AI suggestions still moved writer’s into deeper conversations about their writing choices, it didn’t make them feel better about themselves as writers.
There is a judge that rests in the mind of every writer and the more you write the more the judge’s voice is tamped down. However, for less experienced writers the AI suggestions seemed to amplify the voice of their writing judge.
Fruitful conversations about writing and revision emerged when my students and I talked through what Writable suggested and what they were trying to accomplish in their writing.
Looking inward to find answers
When things don’t go as planned in my classroom, I look inward first. I wonder if my lack of trust in AI and writing “programs” colored my enthusiasm for using Writable? Could it be that I don’t use Writable for my own personal writing and it felt inauthentic to encourage my students to use it for their writing? Or, perhaps, my belief that it is more important to use tools students will use in the real world sabotaged our use of AI?
Still, I’m curious to dive in deeper with Writable. It is easy to point a finger at technology and blame it for the issues I’ve experienced. It is much harder to ask myself questions about how I have used in my classes, for what purpose, and with what intent?
As the New Year is emerging, I plan on being more purposeful with my use of Writable by using it as our primary writing source instead of automatically jumping to Google Docs. It will be interesting to see how Writable works in my own writing as well.
If I’m honest, it makes me a bit nervous to set these goals for myself, but I also know that without fully integrating AI into my own writing I’ll be less likely to encourage its use with my students.
Work Cited:
Hammond, Zaretta, and Yvette Jackson. Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain: Promoting Authentic Engagement and Rigor among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Corwin, a SAGE company, 2015.
