Higher Education Writing Centers Gave Up Their Battle Against A.I.
There are no universally decided upon means by which higher education institutions should tackle artificial intelligence in the writing center. Nonetheless, there are a few writing centers that have made their stance on artificial intelligence clear which grants insight into how higher education institutions currently handle and will handle artificial intelligence in writing centers. Either way, higher education writing centers will be forced to evolve as generative artificial intelligences are used by an ever greater proportion of the higher education student population. This presentation with examine the attitudes of university writing centers who have made their attitudes on AI in the writing center public. Those universities include Saginaw Valley State University, the University of Tennessee, the University of Michigan, and Missouri State University. Each institution while not distant in attitude, holds particular ideas on AI in their writing centers. How writing centers understand the usage of AI will assist in dictating university policy on AI in writing as a whole. These early public attitudes on AI in writing will shape how all university writing centers use AI as the following university writing centers will draw upon the already available data and examples set by other institutions. These attitudes range from being ecstatic about the usage of AI in the writing center to being hesitant, yet none of them are absolutist in regards to utterly eliminating AI from the writing center. This quick informal meta-analysis does not only help writing centers understand where universities stand on AI but also where they will likely come to stand.
In the face of artificial intelligence, the writing center at Saginaw Valley State University has offered itself as a support system for the creation of new assignment schemas. Saginaw Valley’s writing center has encouraged instructors to create assignments that drift away from traditional modes of higher education writing and instead assign, “In-class oral presentations…Podcast episodes, or other multimodal assignments…Assignments that seek to build new, local knowledge…Engagement-based learning assignments…Generating papers with AI technologies…Assigning discipline-specific genres” (Saginaw Valley State University). Here is an attitude that does not push back against the tide of AI but instead adjusts with it. Writing centers can assist students with assignment types that instructors may be unable to fully assist with. With this writing, centers can strategically place themselves as a necessary piece in higher education instruction. Saginaw Valley’s writing center in their artificial intelligence recommendations to instructors states multiple times that instructors should be, “Requiring students meet one-on-one with a Writing Center tutor” (Saginaw Valley State University). Overall, from Saginaw Valley’s writing center, there is an approach that encourages altering writing to the attendance benefit of the writing center. Saginaw’s Valley’s writing center has placed itself as being pro-artificial intelligence and wishes to legitimize itself through this pro stance.
Meanwhile, the University of Tennessee’s writing center is taking a mixed approach and stance to artificial intelligence. There are two main types of recommendations from the University of Tennessee’s writing center, “For all faculty, whether you allow [the] use of AI tools for writing assignments or not” and “For faculty who allow [the] use of AI tools for writing” (Takvoryan). Beginning with the former, the university no matter what desires students to value, “developing understanding and control of the rhetorical practices…Become familiar with how LLMs work, what generative AI is, and the opportunities and risks associated with using it…Create an AI account and practice with it…Don’t rely on AI detectors to draw conclusions about AI use or make academic integrity decisions” (Takvoryan). With the University of Tennessee’s writing center, we see a more neutral approach to artificial intelligence in comparison with the Saginaw Valley writing center. The writing center at the University of Tennessee wants students to be knowledgeable on artificial intelligence while recommending the use of artificial intelligence is up to instructor discretion. The section for those faculty who use artificial intelligence runs similar to the former section, “Talk with your students about AI use…foreground the value of writing…Emphasize the use of AI tools to assist in the research and writing process rather than replace it…Teach students how to fact-check AI output…Create assignments that ask students to reflect on their use of AI tools” (Takvoryan). No matter for the University of Tennessee’s writing center there should be a cautionary approach to using artificial intelligence. Still for the University of Tennessee’s writing center, artificial intelligence should not outright transform the classroom; artificial intelligence should exist alongside traditional modes of writing.
The University of Michigan’s writing center takes a similar approach to the University of Tennessee’s writing center. However, the attitude of the University of Michigan’s writing center is seemingly more defeatist. As the writing states, “Chatbots and other GenAI tools are already being used by students and instructors as part of research and writing processes…Chatbots can be used at any point in the writing process…Detection tools cannot reliably detect AI-generated text…It is difficult at present to specify penalties for unpermitted chatbot use” (University of Michigan), in summation this all points to if we can’t beat it join it attitude. Whereas Saginaw Valley welcomes the intrusion of artificial intelligence and the University of Tennesse thinks they can maintain older modes to a degree the University of Michigan sees an inevitability that must be dealt with. For the University of Michigan, there is no retention of the older modes, yet this is not celebrated like is it for Saginaw Valley but merely accepted and dealt with,
Given the broad availability of the technology and the impossibility of detecting students’ uses of it, instructors should consider integrating a chatbot into courses in order to develop students’ ability to think critically about text output, and to identify biases, inaccuracies, falsifications, ethical implications, benefits, and limits of the technology. We have an opportunity to guide students toward responsible uses of the technology that enhance learning and productivity (University of Michigan).
Commonly, Saginaw Valley’s, The University of Tennessee’s, and the University of Michigan’s writing centers all make artificial intelligence recommendations for instructors. All these writing centers also make assignment-type recommendations to instructors in the face of artificial intelligence. However, this is not the only way a writing center can discuss artificial intelligence, writing centers in discussing AI do not have to limit the conversation to what instructors should/could do. There is the simplest approach done by Missouri State’s writing center which merely links, “Faculty Resources for ChatGPT & AI Writing Programs” (Missouri State). This is not unhelpful by any means, but here we find a writing center taking no authority on the matter of artificial intelligence but instead placing itself as a liaison. We can see even more commonly from all the mentioned writing centers that writing centers wish to reach out to instructors about artificial intelligence. However, none of the mentioned institutions mention what to do about artificial intelligence in the writing center itself. But, Oklahoma State University’s writing center has taken time to answer the question about what to do about artificial intelligence in the writing center itself. I write this as a member of original the panel that decided Oklahoma State’s writing center policy on AI. Our team’s answer was to allow no usage of AI in the writing center, but the policy has changed as Oklahoma State University offers ChatGPT and AI support “You can find relevant information on the use of Chat GPT and other generative AI writing software here,” (Oklahoma State University).
It seems writing centers went by in large the way of Oklahoma State University, The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s writing center even focuses on “Prompt engineering…strategically designing the input prompt, often in multiple steps, to shape the output that the LLM generates” (Dean et al.). Perhaps the University of Michigan’s defeatist attitude around AI and the writing center was a correct fortune told. The writing center will be killed by AI, it does not matter what attitude one holds about this as “Many writing centers are already jumping in to experiment with new AI tools” (Hicks). In the face of this writing centers can only try to keep themselves relevant for so long, but will be cut when deans and university presidents notice they can cut costs by trashing writing centers and instead promote AI tools, or as the University of Washington-Tacoma puts it, “Is ChatGPT a Danger to Education? No. In fact, it can be a valuable tool for learning and accessing information. ChatGPT can generate responses to a wide variety of questions and prompts and can provide access to information and resources that might otherwise be difficult to access. It can also help to answer questions and provide explanations that may not be available in a traditional educational setting” (Lott). Writing centers, if they wish to stay alive, must reinvent themselves beyond the fact that “they assist students in developing the skills they need to produce, develop, polish, and revise their work” (The Catholic University of America). AI technology will not slow down and if writing centers keep giving into AI usage, they will be outpaced out of the writing race, currently the attitude of Saginaw Valley State University takes may be the only option, to run on the back of AI or be eliminated from the race.
Works Cited
In the face of artificial intelligence, the writing center at Saginaw Valley State University has offered itself as a support system for the creation of new assignment schemas. Saginaw Valley’s writing center has encouraged instructors to create assignments that drift away from traditional modes of higher education writing and instead assign, “In-class oral presentations…Podcast episodes, or other multimodal assignments…Assignments that seek to build new, local knowledge…Engagement-based learning assignments…Generating papers with AI technologies…Assigning discipline-specific genres” (Saginaw Valley State University). Here is an attitude that does not push back against the tide of AI but instead adjusts with it. Writing centers can assist students with assignment types that instructors may be unable to fully assist with. With this writing, centers can strategically place themselves as a necessary piece in higher education instruction. Saginaw Valley’s writing center in their artificial intelligence recommendations to instructors states multiple times that instructors should be, “Requiring students meet one-on-one with a Writing Center tutor” (Saginaw Valley State University). Overall, from Saginaw Valley’s writing center, there is an approach that encourages altering writing to the attendance benefit of the writing center. Saginaw’s Valley’s writing center has placed itself as being pro-artificial intelligence and wishes to legitimize itself through this pro stance.
Meanwhile, the University of Tennessee’s writing center is taking a mixed approach and stance to artificial intelligence. There are two main types of recommendations from the University of Tennessee’s writing center, “For all faculty, whether you allow [the] use of AI tools for writing assignments or not” and “For faculty who allow [the] use of AI tools for writing” (Takvoryan). Beginning with the former, the university no matter what desires students to value, “developing understanding and control of the rhetorical practices…Become familiar with how LLMs work, what generative AI is, and the opportunities and risks associated with using it…Create an AI account and practice with it…Don’t rely on AI detectors to draw conclusions about AI use or make academic integrity decisions” (Takvoryan). With the University of Tennessee’s writing center, we see a more neutral approach to artificial intelligence in comparison with the Saginaw Valley writing center. The writing center at the University of Tennessee wants students to be knowledgeable on artificial intelligence while recommending the use of artificial intelligence is up to instructor discretion. The section for those faculty who use artificial intelligence runs similar to the former section, “Talk with your students about AI use…foreground the value of writing…Emphasize the use of AI tools to assist in the research and writing process rather than replace it…Teach students how to fact-check AI output…Create assignments that ask students to reflect on their use of AI tools” (Takvoryan). No matter for the University of Tennessee’s writing center there should be a cautionary approach to using artificial intelligence. Still for the University of Tennessee’s writing center, artificial intelligence should not outright transform the classroom; artificial intelligence should exist alongside traditional modes of writing.
The University of Michigan’s writing center takes a similar approach to the University of Tennessee’s writing center. However, the attitude of the University of Michigan’s writing center is seemingly more defeatist. As the writing states, “Chatbots and other GenAI tools are already being used by students and instructors as part of research and writing processes…Chatbots can be used at any point in the writing process…Detection tools cannot reliably detect AI-generated text…It is difficult at present to specify penalties for unpermitted chatbot use” (University of Michigan), in summation this all points to if we can’t beat it join it attitude. Whereas Saginaw Valley welcomes the intrusion of artificial intelligence and the University of Tennesse thinks they can maintain older modes to a degree the University of Michigan sees an inevitability that must be dealt with. For the University of Michigan, there is no retention of the older modes, yet this is not celebrated like is it for Saginaw Valley but merely accepted and dealt with,
Given the broad availability of the technology and the impossibility of detecting students’ uses of it, instructors should consider integrating a chatbot into courses in order to develop students’ ability to think critically about text output, and to identify biases, inaccuracies, falsifications, ethical implications, benefits, and limits of the technology. We have an opportunity to guide students toward responsible uses of the technology that enhance learning and productivity (University of Michigan).
Commonly, Saginaw Valley’s, The University of Tennessee’s, and the University of Michigan’s writing centers all make artificial intelligence recommendations for instructors. All these writing centers also make assignment-type recommendations to instructors in the face of artificial intelligence. However, this is not the only way a writing center can discuss artificial intelligence, writing centers in discussing AI do not have to limit the conversation to what instructors should/could do. There is the simplest approach done by Missouri State’s writing center which merely links, “Faculty Resources for ChatGPT & AI Writing Programs” (Missouri State). This is not unhelpful by any means, but here we find a writing center taking no authority on the matter of artificial intelligence but instead placing itself as a liaison. We can see even more commonly from all the mentioned writing centers that writing centers wish to reach out to instructors about artificial intelligence. However, none of the mentioned institutions mention what to do about artificial intelligence in the writing center itself. But, Oklahoma State University’s writing center has taken time to answer the question about what to do about artificial intelligence in the writing center itself. I write this as a member of original the panel that decided Oklahoma State’s writing center policy on AI. Our team’s answer was to allow no usage of AI in the writing center, but the policy has changed as Oklahoma State University offers ChatGPT and AI support “You can find relevant information on the use of Chat GPT and other generative AI writing software here,” (Oklahoma State University).
It seems writing centers went by in large the way of Oklahoma State University, The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s writing center even focuses on “Prompt engineering…strategically designing the input prompt, often in multiple steps, to shape the output that the LLM generates” (Dean et al.). Perhaps the University of Michigan’s defeatist attitude around AI and the writing center was a correct fortune told. The writing center will be killed by AI, it does not matter what attitude one holds about this as “Many writing centers are already jumping in to experiment with new AI tools” (Hicks). In the face of this writing centers can only try to keep themselves relevant for so long, but will be cut when deans and university presidents notice they can cut costs by trashing writing centers and instead promote AI tools, or as the University of Washington-Tacoma puts it, “Is ChatGPT a Danger to Education? No. In fact, it can be a valuable tool for learning and accessing information. ChatGPT can generate responses to a wide variety of questions and prompts and can provide access to information and resources that might otherwise be difficult to access. It can also help to answer questions and provide explanations that may not be available in a traditional educational setting” (Lott). Writing centers, if they wish to stay alive, must reinvent themselves beyond the fact that “they assist students in developing the skills they need to produce, develop, polish, and revise their work” (The Catholic University of America). AI technology will not slow down and if writing centers keep giving into AI usage, they will be outpaced out of the writing race, currently the attitude of Saginaw Valley State University takes may be the only option, to run on the back of AI or be eliminated from the race.
Works Cited
“Artificial Intelligence FAQ.” Center For Teaching Excellence, The Catholic University of America, 14 Feb. 2024, centerforteaching.catholic.edu/resources/artificial-intelligence-faq.html.
Chat GPT & Other Generative AI Software, Oklahoma State University, 27 July 2023, itle.okstate.edu/chatgpt.html.
Deans, Thomas, et al. “AI in the Writing Center: Small Steps and Scenarios.” Another Word, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1 Aug. 2023, dept.writing.wisc.edu/blog/ai-wc/.
“Faculty Resources for ChatGPT & AI Writing Programs.” Writing Center at the Bear CLAW, Missouri State University, writingcenter.missouristate.edu/resources-for-ai-writing-programs.htm.
Hicks, Maggie. “College Writing Centers Worry AI Could Replace Them.” EdSurge, EdSurge, 12 Aug. 2024, www.edsurge.com/news/2024-08-12-college-writing-centers-worry-ai-could-replace-them.
Lott, Chris. “Considering ChatGPT.” 2 Mar. 2023.
Takvoryan, Stella. “AI Tools and Writing Assignments: Instructor Resources.” Judith Anderson Herbert Writing Center, University of Tennesse, writingcenter.utk.edu/ai-tools-and-writing-assignments-instructor-resources/.
“Teaching Writing with Chatbots.” LSA, The University of Michigan, 2023, lsa.umich.edu/sweetland/instructors/guides-to-teaching-writing/teaching-writing-with-chatbots.html.
“The Writing Center and Teaching Writing with AI.” Saginaw Valley State University.
Comments
Post a Comment