Since the release of Chatgpt, we have witnessed the potential of the generator to push our 9th Quality English students in a way that surprised us. With ethical guarantees and advice, they take up the challenge of analyzing and questioning AI's answers. Rather than considering technology as a means of cutting the corners or an undeniable authority, our readers and writers use its answers to deepen their writing and their thought.
For several years, we have used in our classroom the workshop model where the accent is always put on the process and the discovery. Whether our students write a personal story or create a polished argument, we guide them to embrace the disorder of writing. The workshop model is not only a structure for our courses, but an educational philosophy which focuses the ownership of students and the authentic voice. In this context, we present AI as another tool in the workshop, the one that offers information that may or may not be applicable.
Our students do not write in isolation. They are part of a dynamic class community where comments are presented in all forms: teachers, peers and yes, artificial intelligence.
As the workshop leaders, we have established a set of writing rules with AI. (These can be found in our book AI in the writing workshop: finding the balance in writing.)
Rule 1 is to write Without First of all. We want the students to connect to their writing and know what they ask for comments rather than just asking the AI to write for them. Rule 2 is to fight for yourself Before turning to AI.
One of our students, Lexi, spent the weekend thinking about what to do with the end of her poem, and when she returned to school, she was always indecisive. We loaded his poem in a bot ai (Rule 3 is to cause the bot), asking him for comments on his end. After passing the list of suggestions provided by AI (Rule 4 is to question your AI results), we have chosen our favorite words or sentences to apply to an end.
When Lexi commented in her reflection on the use of AI in the development of her poem, she wrote: “The AI helped with the title of my poem and the end suggestions. I do not like to use AI, especially if I copied exactly what it indicates because, for the lack of a better term and to finish the assignment and not organic. When I write. “
When teachers make suggestions during a writing workshop, they do not expect the student to accept each comment. Likewise, AI suggestions are only suggestions. We want our students to be aware of themselves as writers. Many, like Lexi, like the way they write and do not want to end up with what she calls a “robotic” voice.
We do not seek to oppose human authorship to AI; Rather, we aim to show how the two can work together.
In our classrooms, we also dispute the false idea that the tools of AI simply serve as shortcuts, by bypassing critical thinking and creativity. We do not seek to oppose human authorship to AI; Rather, we aim to show how the two can work together. We can adopt AI as a partner of thought, a means of improving critical thinking and encouraging a more in -depth commitment with the texts.
In his essay on “Macbeth”, another student, Cadence, illustrates this. When provided with a test generated by AI-AI on liquid imaging in the room, Cadence noted both forces and gaps in the response. A surprising overview of her came when Chatgpt connected the witch cauldron with the themes of the chaos of the room. “I had no note on the scene of witches with the cauldron,” she thought, “but Chatgpt noted liquid imagery … and what it could symbolize.” This encouraged her to extend his analysis, recognizing how liquid imaging in the witches' scenes has also transferred Macbeth's detangling spell.
The ability of our students to navigate the comments of the AI reflects a change in the way in which the role of technology in education. Even advanced technology does not replace human thought but a complement, and sometimes even a catalyst, for deep learning.
Other students have not adopted AI. Lauren feels strongly to hang on to her own writing voice. In a class investigation, she said: “For me, writing is something that is purely made of passion and interest. I think that is what AI is lacking … although AI can be useful in a minor way, like finding a word that seems just in an assignment, I think I would be very well without AI. ” Lauren's feelings are valid. While some students thrive with the Pushing of AI, others remain skeptical and choose to repel. The two responses are acceptable in our classrooms.
By passing the image of the AI from the shortcut to the scaffolding, we encourage students and educators to engage with technology so as to deepen learning and to raise paternity. Students can question, question and ultimately refine what AI provides.
Likewise, teachers must resist the siren song in the instant classification using AI. If we teach our students throughout their life in writing what the rating robot says most, then we teach them that their audience does not matter. The cycle of pupils who put tests and teachers written in a bot using AI to note them is not an education system that hopes to see. Similar to our writing rule first, teachers must engage with the content of the students before considering using AI to help them provide comments.
When we teach our students that their voices count, their perspectives are unique and their work is theirs, we allow them to push their reflection, defend their ideas and refine their profession. Even the most advanced technologies cannot compete with the authenticity and the depth of human authorship. The significant integration of AI into our classrooms challenges us to prioritize critical thinking and creativity in relation to simple convenience. It promotes a generation of thoughtful and innovative learners, learners who go beyond the basics when they find the balance between technology and humanity.