Miguel Afonso Caetano"Yes, handwritten work offers a great start and can demonstrate memory. and oral exams can reveal real understanding. But research enables students to inhabit a scholarly conversation, despite ever-present machine interference, rather than merely consume it. The worst-case scenario in my classroom is a student rewriting a machine’s sloppy draft into something coherent, evidence-based, and theirs. That’s not cheating. That’s revision with heavy lifting and thinking. As all writing instructors know, revision is the heart of writing. When students re-read every claim, every citation, alongside every repetitive, bloated sentence, they reflect on their own human thinking and voices. Blue books may prevent cheating. Critical writing with AI teaches scholarly judgment.
If we care about learning and equity, the default should be authenticated, in-person writing plus supervised revision, not collaborations with systems that hallucinate and obscure authorship.
(...)
In my classes, the rule is simple: disclose your tools, verify every claim, and be ready to defend your argument aloud. When students use a model to draft and then disassemble its mistakes, misattributed quotes, absent methods, and glib summaries, they practice careful reading and the courage to revise. We can accommodate writing differences, protect privacy, and level AI access because equity matters as much as integrity. Blue books prevent cheating for an hour; research writing, done transparently with or without a model, builds judgment for a lifetime. That is the reason I’m still teaching the research paper."
https://ruth.substack.com/p/blue-books-big-models-and-why-im
#AI #GenerativeAI #Writing #Universities #HigherEd #BlueBooks
(((Cindy Weinstein)))
Chris Dudley
TheStaticRim
Single Resolution Board