AI and the Written Word: Why We Still Need to Learn to Write

Artificial Intelligence is changing everything, and writing is no exception. We're seeing AI capable of generating everything from basic reports to complex academic summaries at lightning speed. It's so efficient that some wonder if the traditional skill of writing, honed through years of practice, is becoming obsolete. After all, if AI can do it, why should we?

But here's the crucial counterpoint: writing isn't just about the finished product. It's about the process, the thinking, and the unique human connection it fosters. While AI can certainly help us generate text, it can't replicate the deep cognitive and communicative benefits that come from crafting our own words.

The Power of Human Authorship

More Than Just Typing: The Power of Human Authorship

Consider these vital aspects of human writing that AI simply can't replace:

Thinking on Paper: Writing is a powerful tool for critical thinking. It forces us to organize our thoughts, clarify our arguments, and explore ideas in a way that deepens our understanding. It's how we truly "learn."

• Building Knowledge: When we write about a topic, we actively engage with the material, synthesize information, and construct our own understanding. This active process is fundamental to building lasting knowledge.

  
  

• Finding Your Voice: Our writing is an extension of ourselves. It reflects our unique perspective, our emotions, and our personal style. This "deeply human act" of self-expression and authentic communication is something AI cannot replicate.

  
  

• The Growth Through Revision: The journey from a first draft to a polished piece is where much of the intellectual and creative growth happens. The "time and toil" of revision, refining and improving our work, is essential for becoming a skilled writer.

AI is a Tool

AI in Education: A Tool, Not a Crutch

The ease of AI-generated content has understandably raised concerns about academic integrity. Students are using AI, and detecting it can be tough. But the answer isn't to ban AI outright. Instead, educators are emphasizing responsible integration. Both professor and students need to learn how to effectively use AI to prepare students for the modern workplace.

The goal is shifting to teach students to use AI effectively and ethically as a supportive tool, not a shortcut. This means focusing on:

• Process, Not Just Product: Teaching students how to use AI during the writing process – for brainstorming, outlining, or revising – while still requiring them to engage in the critical thinking aspects.

  
  

• Critical Evaluation: AI can sometimes make mistakes or "hallucinate" false information. Students must learn to critically evaluate AI-generated content and verify its accuracy.

  
  

• Preserving the Human Touch: Over-reliance on AI can lead to generic language and a loss of a student's unique voice. The emphasis should always be on enhancing, not replacing, human creativity and expression.

  
  

Rethinking Assessment

Rethinking Assessment: Measuring What Matters

The challenge AI poses to traditional written assignments forces a critical re-evaluation of how we assess learning. If AI can produce seemingly proficient term papers, what are we truly measuring? The focus must shift from simply evaluating a written product to assessing student outcomes – demonstrating genuine understanding, critical thinking, and the ability to articulate knowledge.

Perhaps it's time to retire the ubiquitous term paper as the primary measure of learning. Instead, educators can explore alternative assessment tools that better reveal a student's internal cognitive processes and unique abilities:

• Oral Examinations and Presentations: Requiring students to articulate their understanding verbally, defend their arguments, and engage in live discussion can be far more revealing than a written submission. This format demands immediate recall, synthetic thinking, and persuasive communication without the aid of AI text generation.

  
  

• Project-Based Learning: Assignments that require students to apply knowledge in practical scenarios, create multimedia projects, or solve real-world problems often involve complex thinking and collaboration that AI cannot easily automate.

  
  

• Process-Focused Portfolios: Instead of just a final paper, assessing a portfolio that includes outlines, drafts, reflections on the writing process, and documentation of AI use (if permitted) can provide a clearer picture of a student's learning journey and effort.

  
  

• In-Class or Online, Proctored Writing: For certain foundational skills, short, supervised writing exercises can still play a role in assessing spontaneous thought and basic composition. Some tools can verify computer lockdowns and track eye movement for remote students.

By diversifying assessment methods, professors can ensure they are truly measuring what students have learned, not just what AI can generate.

The Case for Rhetoric

The Case for Rhetoric: Learning to Persuade and Engage

Looking ahead, some educators are advocating for a powerful shift in college writing: a return to rhetoric. While traditional composition focuses on academic papers, rhetoric teaches "the art of communication and persuasion" for the broader "civic and moral life of a nation."

Imagine a curriculum that teaches students not just what to write, but how to write powerfully and persuasively, drawing inspiration from historical giants of communication. Rhetoric equips students with the tools to develop ideas, structure arguments, and engage audiences effectively, fostering "quick reasoning and creativity."

The future of writing and education in the age of AI isn't about choosing between human and machine. It's about empowering humans to leverage AI as a sophisticated assistant while preserving and enhancing the invaluable skills of critical thinking, authentic communication, and persuasive expression that only we can truly master.

Listen to the research that inspired this post

*All images generated by WIX AI

**It is important to be aware of AI bias - all photos were male unless specifically stated as female. Female professors were not deemed acceptable by this professor.