I love your work and have referred to it in my professional communication. However, I am hoping that the copyright mark in your post is intended to be facetious since ideas cannot be copyrighted. By default, everything you create is copyrighted, but your demarcation suggests that you intend to "possess" the word combination as a trademark that cannot be used by anyone else, similar to how "3-peat" is trademarked.
My issue as an English teacher in a secondary school with intense workloads and students to get through 1940s style exams, is time. The constant checking of sources and rewriting or tweaking of AI output is not saving me time. It’s just quicker to do it myself.
Plus the apparent need, now, for teachers to become prompt engineers (and yes it is engineering, as this has come from STEM) is a cognitive load I’m becoming quite grumpy about.
I keep pushing these questions out but feel like I’m shouting into the void…it’s almost as if people don’t want to admit that actually it’s all a bit much and that teachers in actual classrooms with teenagers just may push back because it’s moving so fast and is led by tech companies who have profit margins to maximise.
I’m a technophile. But at the moment I’m getting more annoyed than liberated by the tech.
So, I’m glad to read this post, but would love literally anyone to address the cognitive overload being dumped on teachers.
What a breath of fresh air!!! I will give your comment a lot of thought, and try to write up a piece in the upcoming weeks. You are absolutely right. I still have my pile of papers to work through. The cognitive load of teacher sans AI is so heavy, and now all these new processes to figure it. I get it!!!
Nice!! This model is helpful as a heuristic to think about how AI might not be the escape hatch from effort, the “frictionless” path that is creating so much anxiety in writing classrooms. It carves out three interactive spaces in which writers take up stances toward substance that in this case reveals uses of AI instead of abuses. Even hard copy printed sources can be used or abused.
It also broadly mirrors the central cognitive and metacognitive clusters of intentions that drive critical reading. Explore, target, verify, integrate, verify, target, explore—AI output is after all something to read and integrate alongside everything else that surfaces during a writing task. Pedagogical research in live classrooms where we have a carefully documented understanding of the task environment and community culture will tell us more about how to teach reading AI output. Your elaborated diagrams offer a solid starting point.
The key point—that AI doesn’t diminish friction but creates it—is well taken and helps us understand how to better teach both the affordances and constraints of all composition, comprehension, and communication tools.
I love your work and have referred to it in my professional communication. However, I am hoping that the copyright mark in your post is intended to be facetious since ideas cannot be copyrighted. By default, everything you create is copyrighted, but your demarcation suggests that you intend to "possess" the word combination as a trademark that cannot be used by anyone else, similar to how "3-peat" is trademarked.
Keep up the excellent work.
Thanks for the assistance, Steve.
It's a very useful framework, and I'm looking forward to keeping up with its maturation.
Thanks, Michael. Yes, I will continue to refine as I integrate into classroom settings.
My issue as an English teacher in a secondary school with intense workloads and students to get through 1940s style exams, is time. The constant checking of sources and rewriting or tweaking of AI output is not saving me time. It’s just quicker to do it myself.
Plus the apparent need, now, for teachers to become prompt engineers (and yes it is engineering, as this has come from STEM) is a cognitive load I’m becoming quite grumpy about.
I keep pushing these questions out but feel like I’m shouting into the void…it’s almost as if people don’t want to admit that actually it’s all a bit much and that teachers in actual classrooms with teenagers just may push back because it’s moving so fast and is led by tech companies who have profit margins to maximise.
I’m a technophile. But at the moment I’m getting more annoyed than liberated by the tech.
So, I’m glad to read this post, but would love literally anyone to address the cognitive overload being dumped on teachers.
What a breath of fresh air!!! I will give your comment a lot of thought, and try to write up a piece in the upcoming weeks. You are absolutely right. I still have my pile of papers to work through. The cognitive load of teacher sans AI is so heavy, and now all these new processes to figure it. I get it!!!
Ah, thanks! Much appreciated! I have howled about it here too if you want a deeper dive grumble!! https://substack.com/@madeleinechampagnie/note/p-153638504?r=6hgjl&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Nice!! This model is helpful as a heuristic to think about how AI might not be the escape hatch from effort, the “frictionless” path that is creating so much anxiety in writing classrooms. It carves out three interactive spaces in which writers take up stances toward substance that in this case reveals uses of AI instead of abuses. Even hard copy printed sources can be used or abused.
It also broadly mirrors the central cognitive and metacognitive clusters of intentions that drive critical reading. Explore, target, verify, integrate, verify, target, explore—AI output is after all something to read and integrate alongside everything else that surfaces during a writing task. Pedagogical research in live classrooms where we have a carefully documented understanding of the task environment and community culture will tell us more about how to teach reading AI output. Your elaborated diagrams offer a solid starting point.
The key point—that AI doesn’t diminish friction but creates it—is well taken and helps us understand how to better teach both the affordances and constraints of all composition, comprehension, and communication tools.