"If students can easily generate sophisticated essays - complete with nuanced arguments and appropriate references - what motivates learning?" This is a false dilemma. In the past students could still pay for another human to write their essay - and some did - this is no different from the best AI, except in the scale of the problem. Just like in elementary school we *should* ban calculators, because we want student to master the skills of basic arithmetic, likewise we *should* ban AI at the initial stages of learning how to write (ideally in high school, realistically in the early years of college/uni).
More broadly I agree that oral examinations are an increasingly crucial component to any at-home/technology-based written assignment. To these I add more and more in-class pen-and-paper-only essays. The combo of seeing students definitely-genuine writing (pen-and-paper under observation) AND orally examining them on at-home research seems to me to be the best solution. Ultimately, yes, they will integrate AI in their work, but to ensure they are the one's in the intellectual "driver's seat" we must be sure that they master the skills first, and temporary bans at the early stages of learning are useful and probably necessary.
Protesting calculator use seems pretty reasonable, actually. It's good to have a foundation in doing arithmetic yourself before you have the calculator do it. Doing arithmetic for yourself helps build useful mathematical intuition.
My favorite math teacher in HS would have 3 sections on every test: one section brain-only (no calculators or scratch paper), one section where scratch paper is allowed with no calculator, and finally a section where the TI-83 calculator is allowed. This was for relatively high-level courses covering topics like trigonometry and pre-calculus.
Imagine working at a job where your boss has zero hands-on experience in your line of work. You will quickly find yourself resenting your boss. Your boss will accidentally demand the impossible, or make claims that are "not even wrong", and you'll have to humor them.
The best boss has hands-on experience which gives them deep knowledge of the challenges faced by their workers. To become that boss, you put in the hours to gain hands-on experience. Same principle applies regardless of whether you're managing a human vs an AI. That's my take.
I think we are asking the wrong question. More ways to get more knowledge is better, not worse. The students can learn from the AI response and become better educated, including in how to use AI to access knowledge so it is at our fingertips. Additionally long form written formats tend to disadvantage neurodivergent students who may be some of the most innovative thinkers, but in my experience very often experience extreme difficulty with written coursework, at least if not on treatment for ADHD which assists their language processing. I learn so much so quickly from using Chat GPT and agree it is a resource which we should all be able to use.
We have taken a similar approach (oral examination) at my university for dealing with the use of AI in term papers and thesis. Professors complain about the extra work.
I see the oral examination as a good solution to the question whether the student knows the subject. And I would readily admit that a good instructor can assess whether the student knows the subject "deeply".
One issue for which I do not see a solution: the learning that happens through the writing itself. Trying to come up with ideas, combining literatures, summarising disparate sources into a common framework, choosing the right phrasing, etc. All these are tasks where modern LLM excel. We can debate how goo they are, but they are definitely good enough for a decent grade.
>> One issue for which I do not see a solution: the learning that happens through the writing itself. Trying to come up with ideas, combining literatures, summarising disparate sources into a common framework, choosing the right phrasing, etc. All these are tasks where modern LLM excel. We can debate how goo they are, but they are definitely good enough for a decent grade.
You can try to address that in the oral exam. Interrogate the students' on their process: "where did you find this article" "what does this author say?" "what does this word mean?" etc.
Wonderful proposal. That's akin to the practical rubric and practical demonstration we use in our writing workshops (not at a traditional university). Although there's no incentive to do so, they could use a genai widget to produce words—though they're very unlikely to achieve the rubric measures for working fiction. We also have conversations about the fundamentals, usually where there are gaps, not as assessments. since we don't issue a diploma, we don't really need to do assessments—the students come to improve their genre writing skills and are invested in that outcome.
Unfortunately, your proposal would require professors who are universally capable of both deeply thinking themselves and holding that interview in a thoughtful, caring way. Remembering my own professors from the previous millennium and observing my daughter's current, deep frustration with her professors and teaching assistants inability to explain basic concepts in a polite fashion, I'm convinced that the academia we have (as it's constructed and staffed today) is NOT equipped to do what you propose successfully. If the professors and their assistants don't have those skills, how are they going to teach them or evaluate them in students? 😞
In fact, calculators and their equivalents are widely banned in contexts where students are supposed to learn the skills they replace. This is true for first graders learning addition and for high school students learning to graph functions. When I teach programming, I give exams where they can't use computers, not because of worries about plagiarism but because I want students to have to think rather than experiment.
The key question is whether AI tools are actually going to replace the skills we want people to develop. Will they be writing your essays soon enough that students don't have to learn writing?
Yes, precisely, thank you! I assign essays because writing them teaches students how to argue and think in an organized, coherent, fashion. And I assign research papers because I want students to learn how to do research. Those who've mastered the skills will be capable to use AI to make their work more efficient. Those who didn't are at high risk of outsourcing their thinking. These are not at all the same thing ! I see no practical way to lead them to acquire the skills to be able to do the former, other than banning AI completely at least in some settings (e.g, using in-class, hand-written closed-books no-tech exams).
The Ghosts of Quills Past: A Rebuttal to the Tyranny of Writing
By Margaret Atwood (style emulated)
Once, long ago, there were no pens. No papers. No keyboards. No essay prompts or footnotes or citations. The human mind was untethered by the tyranny of ink, and learning was something you did with your hands, your eyes, your ears, and, most importantly, your questions. You observed the stars, listened to the crackle of a fire, and wondered. Curiosity didn’t need paragraphs. And yet, here we are, clinging to writing as though it is the only anchor to intelligence, the sole measure of learning, the final testament of our cleverness.
The writer I respond to raises important questions. They fear the essay might become obsolete in the age of generative AI. But I wonder: was the essay ever the best measure of intelligence to begin with? Perhaps it’s time to let go of the quill—and with it, the notion that writing is the only path to intellectual growth.
Writing’s Reign: A Product of History, Not Necessity
Writing, they tell us, is sacred. It is how we have recorded our great discoveries and our mundane grievances. But writing is not synonymous with intelligence; it is merely a tool for its expression. Before the pen, there was the tongue, and before the tongue, there was the hand pointing, shaping, signaling: Look there. Think this.
The truth is, writing has always been a convenience, not an inevitability. It is a human-made construct, much like the wheel or the plow. Societies without written language relied on oral traditions and storytelling, cultivating memory and analytical skills we moderns would envy. These were cultures rich with knowledge, even if they lacked the written word to flaunt it.
Writing, as it stands, has been unfairly conflated with intelligence. Its tidy lines and authoritative tone make it easy to mistake for wisdom. But intelligence is messy. It is the ability to adapt, to question, to experiment, to fail. Writing is simply one form it has taken, and not necessarily the best one.
Consumption Over Creation: A New Metric for Learning
Humans are sponges before they are scribes. We learn first by observing, listening, and absorbing. Consumption is not passive—it is the soil in which ideas grow. An AI age allows us to cultivate this soil more richly than ever before.
Imagine a classroom where students ask AI questions not to complete an assignment but to chase their curiosity. Imagine their delight as they challenge the machine’s answers, refine their understanding, and connect the dots between seemingly unrelated facts. This is learning as it should be: dynamic, iterative, alive.
Writing, by contrast, can feel static, rigid. It forces the mind into a linear format that often obscures the chaotic beauty of discovery. Why make students spend hours crafting essays when the real magic happens in the asking of questions and the grappling with answers?
The Illusion of the Essay
Essays have long been the darling of education. They teach structure, coherence, and the dreaded thesis statement. But let us admit that essays are, more often than not, exercises in conformity.
Students learn to mimic what their teachers want to hear, to string quotes together like beads on a necklace, to pad their paragraphs with filler words. And at the end of it all, what have they truly learned? To follow a template? To impress? To fake it?
AI reveals the essay’s limitations by doing it better, faster, and with less fuss. But this is not a loss—it is a revelation. If AI can churn out essays, why not let it? Let students focus on the real skills essays purport to teach: planning, questioning, analyzing. The essay itself is the husk; the process is the seed.
Teaching in the Age of AI
If we are to keep writing in our classrooms, let us redefine its role. Writing should not be a product but a process, a conversation between the mind and the page. Teachers should encourage students to co-create with AI, to outline ideas, test arguments, and refine drafts in real time.
But more importantly, let us move beyond writing altogether. Imagine teachers observing students as they interact with AI, noting the questions they ask, the paths they follow, the connections they make. This is where intelligence lives—not in the polished essay but in the messy, exhilarating process of learning.
Assessments could focus on these interactions. Did the student ask insightful questions? Did they challenge the AI’s responses? Did they integrate new knowledge into their thinking? The emphasis shifts from what they produce to how they think.
Writing as Reflection, Not Proof
I am not calling for the death of writing. It still holds value as a tool for reflection, a means of organizing thoughts and finding clarity. But it should no longer be the centerpiece of education. Let students write journals, craft stories, or record their thoughts in multimedia formats. Let them create not to prove their worth but to explore their ideas.
And let writing evolve into something less sacred and more human—a tool among tools, rather than the sole measure of our intellect.
A Closing Argument
The AI age has not made writing obsolete. It has simply revealed its limitations. As educators and learners, we have the opportunity to expand our definition of intelligence, to embrace new methods of learning that prioritize curiosity, adaptability, and critical engagement.
Writing will always have a place, but it is no longer the only place. Let us give students the freedom to learn through asking, through questioning, through consuming knowledge and reshaping it in their minds. Let us remember that intelligence is not what we write—it is what we wonder.
And so, dear quill, thank you for your service. But it’s time to make room for something new.
"Just a straightforward 10-minute conversation where they explain their argument, discuss their key references, and demonstrate their understanding."
This has been standard practice in our local Uni Computer Science courses for the past couple of years (One of our daughters earned 'pocket money' during term time marking student work). I guess because Github copilot is so good at student coding assignments.
Maybe it's a good idea for you to also use AI for your evaluations. Let me explain: instead of using 4 days to evaluate behind the screen, perhaps the AI can generate questions based on the student's current exposure. This way you would only have to evaluate what was recorded at the end and the questions could be generated by Chat GPT
"If students can easily generate sophisticated essays - complete with nuanced arguments and appropriate references - what motivates learning?" This is a false dilemma. In the past students could still pay for another human to write their essay - and some did - this is no different from the best AI, except in the scale of the problem. Just like in elementary school we *should* ban calculators, because we want student to master the skills of basic arithmetic, likewise we *should* ban AI at the initial stages of learning how to write (ideally in high school, realistically in the early years of college/uni).
More broadly I agree that oral examinations are an increasingly crucial component to any at-home/technology-based written assignment. To these I add more and more in-class pen-and-paper-only essays. The combo of seeing students definitely-genuine writing (pen-and-paper under observation) AND orally examining them on at-home research seems to me to be the best solution. Ultimately, yes, they will integrate AI in their work, but to ensure they are the one's in the intellectual "driver's seat" we must be sure that they master the skills first, and temporary bans at the early stages of learning are useful and probably necessary.
Protesting calculator use seems pretty reasonable, actually. It's good to have a foundation in doing arithmetic yourself before you have the calculator do it. Doing arithmetic for yourself helps build useful mathematical intuition.
My favorite math teacher in HS would have 3 sections on every test: one section brain-only (no calculators or scratch paper), one section where scratch paper is allowed with no calculator, and finally a section where the TI-83 calculator is allowed. This was for relatively high-level courses covering topics like trigonometry and pre-calculus.
Imagine working at a job where your boss has zero hands-on experience in your line of work. You will quickly find yourself resenting your boss. Your boss will accidentally demand the impossible, or make claims that are "not even wrong", and you'll have to humor them.
The best boss has hands-on experience which gives them deep knowledge of the challenges faced by their workers. To become that boss, you put in the hours to gain hands-on experience. Same principle applies regardless of whether you're managing a human vs an AI. That's my take.
I think we are asking the wrong question. More ways to get more knowledge is better, not worse. The students can learn from the AI response and become better educated, including in how to use AI to access knowledge so it is at our fingertips. Additionally long form written formats tend to disadvantage neurodivergent students who may be some of the most innovative thinkers, but in my experience very often experience extreme difficulty with written coursework, at least if not on treatment for ADHD which assists their language processing. I learn so much so quickly from using Chat GPT and agree it is a resource which we should all be able to use.
We have taken a similar approach (oral examination) at my university for dealing with the use of AI in term papers and thesis. Professors complain about the extra work.
I see the oral examination as a good solution to the question whether the student knows the subject. And I would readily admit that a good instructor can assess whether the student knows the subject "deeply".
One issue for which I do not see a solution: the learning that happens through the writing itself. Trying to come up with ideas, combining literatures, summarising disparate sources into a common framework, choosing the right phrasing, etc. All these are tasks where modern LLM excel. We can debate how goo they are, but they are definitely good enough for a decent grade.
>> One issue for which I do not see a solution: the learning that happens through the writing itself. Trying to come up with ideas, combining literatures, summarising disparate sources into a common framework, choosing the right phrasing, etc. All these are tasks where modern LLM excel. We can debate how goo they are, but they are definitely good enough for a decent grade.
You can try to address that in the oral exam. Interrogate the students' on their process: "where did you find this article" "what does this author say?" "what does this word mean?" etc.
Is your proposed assessment plan going to run into problems with concerns for disability equality? There are already students committing suicide because of extreme social anxiety around presentations (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-65390017) and given that student mental health is increasingly poor (a recent survey had 46% with a mental health diagnosis before starting university - https://wonkhe.com/blogs/building-community-is-as-important-as-counselling-wait-times/), I could imagine many objecting to that form of assessment.
Wonderful proposal. That's akin to the practical rubric and practical demonstration we use in our writing workshops (not at a traditional university). Although there's no incentive to do so, they could use a genai widget to produce words—though they're very unlikely to achieve the rubric measures for working fiction. We also have conversations about the fundamentals, usually where there are gaps, not as assessments. since we don't issue a diploma, we don't really need to do assessments—the students come to improve their genre writing skills and are invested in that outcome.
Unfortunately, your proposal would require professors who are universally capable of both deeply thinking themselves and holding that interview in a thoughtful, caring way. Remembering my own professors from the previous millennium and observing my daughter's current, deep frustration with her professors and teaching assistants inability to explain basic concepts in a polite fashion, I'm convinced that the academia we have (as it's constructed and staffed today) is NOT equipped to do what you propose successfully. If the professors and their assistants don't have those skills, how are they going to teach them or evaluate them in students? 😞
In fact, calculators and their equivalents are widely banned in contexts where students are supposed to learn the skills they replace. This is true for first graders learning addition and for high school students learning to graph functions. When I teach programming, I give exams where they can't use computers, not because of worries about plagiarism but because I want students to have to think rather than experiment.
The key question is whether AI tools are actually going to replace the skills we want people to develop. Will they be writing your essays soon enough that students don't have to learn writing?
Yes, precisely, thank you! I assign essays because writing them teaches students how to argue and think in an organized, coherent, fashion. And I assign research papers because I want students to learn how to do research. Those who've mastered the skills will be capable to use AI to make their work more efficient. Those who didn't are at high risk of outsourcing their thinking. These are not at all the same thing ! I see no practical way to lead them to acquire the skills to be able to do the former, other than banning AI completely at least in some settings (e.g, using in-class, hand-written closed-books no-tech exams).
The Ghosts of Quills Past: A Rebuttal to the Tyranny of Writing
By Margaret Atwood (style emulated)
Once, long ago, there were no pens. No papers. No keyboards. No essay prompts or footnotes or citations. The human mind was untethered by the tyranny of ink, and learning was something you did with your hands, your eyes, your ears, and, most importantly, your questions. You observed the stars, listened to the crackle of a fire, and wondered. Curiosity didn’t need paragraphs. And yet, here we are, clinging to writing as though it is the only anchor to intelligence, the sole measure of learning, the final testament of our cleverness.
The writer I respond to raises important questions. They fear the essay might become obsolete in the age of generative AI. But I wonder: was the essay ever the best measure of intelligence to begin with? Perhaps it’s time to let go of the quill—and with it, the notion that writing is the only path to intellectual growth.
Writing’s Reign: A Product of History, Not Necessity
Writing, they tell us, is sacred. It is how we have recorded our great discoveries and our mundane grievances. But writing is not synonymous with intelligence; it is merely a tool for its expression. Before the pen, there was the tongue, and before the tongue, there was the hand pointing, shaping, signaling: Look there. Think this.
The truth is, writing has always been a convenience, not an inevitability. It is a human-made construct, much like the wheel or the plow. Societies without written language relied on oral traditions and storytelling, cultivating memory and analytical skills we moderns would envy. These were cultures rich with knowledge, even if they lacked the written word to flaunt it.
Writing, as it stands, has been unfairly conflated with intelligence. Its tidy lines and authoritative tone make it easy to mistake for wisdom. But intelligence is messy. It is the ability to adapt, to question, to experiment, to fail. Writing is simply one form it has taken, and not necessarily the best one.
Consumption Over Creation: A New Metric for Learning
Humans are sponges before they are scribes. We learn first by observing, listening, and absorbing. Consumption is not passive—it is the soil in which ideas grow. An AI age allows us to cultivate this soil more richly than ever before.
Imagine a classroom where students ask AI questions not to complete an assignment but to chase their curiosity. Imagine their delight as they challenge the machine’s answers, refine their understanding, and connect the dots between seemingly unrelated facts. This is learning as it should be: dynamic, iterative, alive.
Writing, by contrast, can feel static, rigid. It forces the mind into a linear format that often obscures the chaotic beauty of discovery. Why make students spend hours crafting essays when the real magic happens in the asking of questions and the grappling with answers?
The Illusion of the Essay
Essays have long been the darling of education. They teach structure, coherence, and the dreaded thesis statement. But let us admit that essays are, more often than not, exercises in conformity.
Students learn to mimic what their teachers want to hear, to string quotes together like beads on a necklace, to pad their paragraphs with filler words. And at the end of it all, what have they truly learned? To follow a template? To impress? To fake it?
AI reveals the essay’s limitations by doing it better, faster, and with less fuss. But this is not a loss—it is a revelation. If AI can churn out essays, why not let it? Let students focus on the real skills essays purport to teach: planning, questioning, analyzing. The essay itself is the husk; the process is the seed.
Teaching in the Age of AI
If we are to keep writing in our classrooms, let us redefine its role. Writing should not be a product but a process, a conversation between the mind and the page. Teachers should encourage students to co-create with AI, to outline ideas, test arguments, and refine drafts in real time.
But more importantly, let us move beyond writing altogether. Imagine teachers observing students as they interact with AI, noting the questions they ask, the paths they follow, the connections they make. This is where intelligence lives—not in the polished essay but in the messy, exhilarating process of learning.
Assessments could focus on these interactions. Did the student ask insightful questions? Did they challenge the AI’s responses? Did they integrate new knowledge into their thinking? The emphasis shifts from what they produce to how they think.
Writing as Reflection, Not Proof
I am not calling for the death of writing. It still holds value as a tool for reflection, a means of organizing thoughts and finding clarity. But it should no longer be the centerpiece of education. Let students write journals, craft stories, or record their thoughts in multimedia formats. Let them create not to prove their worth but to explore their ideas.
And let writing evolve into something less sacred and more human—a tool among tools, rather than the sole measure of our intellect.
A Closing Argument
The AI age has not made writing obsolete. It has simply revealed its limitations. As educators and learners, we have the opportunity to expand our definition of intelligence, to embrace new methods of learning that prioritize curiosity, adaptability, and critical engagement.
Writing will always have a place, but it is no longer the only place. Let us give students the freedom to learn through asking, through questioning, through consuming knowledge and reshaping it in their minds. Let us remember that intelligence is not what we write—it is what we wonder.
And so, dear quill, thank you for your service. But it’s time to make room for something new.
"Just a straightforward 10-minute conversation where they explain their argument, discuss their key references, and demonstrate their understanding."
This has been standard practice in our local Uni Computer Science courses for the past couple of years (One of our daughters earned 'pocket money' during term time marking student work). I guess because Github copilot is so good at student coding assignments.
Hello Alice
I really enjoy your work.
I'm from Spain. Thinking about it...
Maybe it's a good idea for you to also use AI for your evaluations. Let me explain: instead of using 4 days to evaluate behind the screen, perhaps the AI can generate questions based on the student's current exposure. This way you would only have to evaluate what was recorded at the end and the questions could be generated by Chat GPT
Thanks Alice, great question! This poem by Joseph Fasano on this, posted by someone who presented it to her students as:
"FOR A STUDENT WHO USED AI TO WRITE A PAPER:
Now I let it fall back
in the grasses
I hear you. I know
this life is hard now.
I know your days are precious
on this earth
But what are you trying
to be free of?
The living? The miraculous
task of it?
Love is for the ones who love the work
https://bsky.app/profile/melissaf-b.bsky.social/post/3lblfypq5ic2l