Dear Students, Don’t Let the Machines Think for You

Written by Aj Rampairada (Da)

As a child, I used to pen my thoughts every time I had a chance. Unfortunately, once I grew up (though still small in size, LOL) juggling part-time work at various universities, being a full-time doctoral student, working at a tutoring school as a junior tutor, and handling personal, professional, and family struggles just to make ends meet consume too much of my limited, yet valuable time. But what is more shocking than my burden is witnessing my students change their learning habits by using state-of-the-art AI without giving it much thought.

Artificial Intelligence, the so-called invention, is aimed at providing convenience and superiority for humans. Somehow, I wonder whether its purposes are still the same or if it has merely become a tool for increasing humans’ laziness and carelessness, not to mention greediness. IMHO, I, first as a learner and now a teacher, have discovered that disembodied AIs are pushing human intelligence backward although their first purpose – slowly fading and disappearing – was moving forward.

I now have a story to tell, just one common story from a trying-to-be-well teacher. Students, my utmost important people in my career, are becoming more dependent on technology. They no longer jot notes down on paper – they copy what algorithms generate. It’s handy and wise to work a shorter way, but this undeniably speeds up the apocalyptic end of humans. Although we discover and invent various technological advancements, I wonder how many of us would be users, not followers. And another question is: who will be the next inventor if we all turn into regular and frequent users?

Some anecdotal examples to support my views are from my classes, mainly focusing on English reading and writing. Once tasks are assigned, several students say they are not good or even blame themselves for “sucking” at studying. Others say that writing is too difficult for them. One mentions they can’t think of anything to write. These comments and behaviors seem to be just excuses to avoid doing tiring and daunting tasks assigned to them. But being literate is not innate; learners must persevere to broaden their horizons, especially through declarative and procedural knowledge. In addition, research shows that once humans start to read and write, this affects both individual and societal development, benefiting all walks of life.

And sadly, the one and only shortest way to solve my lovely students’ problems is pretty thoughtless and careless. They have started relying on AIs and chatbots to think, copy, and write for them. One reason behind might be connected to the notion of satisfactory outcomes; however, writing, especially in the thinking process, is based on process-based approach. This situation is similar to flipping a coin. Normally, we humans feed information and instructions to AIs to work for us. However, this short-sighted view begins to first fade learners’ thinking processes and later fossilize their necessary abilities.

I believe it's scenarios like these that many teachers, educators, or even tutors are trying to avoid. Doing what we love does not guarantee that those we love are going to realize how much effort we put in or how much success they will later have. This is just the beginning, but when will it end? I keep asking, pondering, and dreaming, hoping present and future students earn true core skills, and not cheat the necessary process.

With love,

A teacher holding on to hopes, no matter how small

References:

Bashiri, A., & Shahrokhi, M. (2016). Improving writing proficiency, autonomy, and critical thinking ability through process-based writing instruction: A study of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 232-244.

Eviatar, Z., & Huettig, F. (2021). The literate mind. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 5(2), 81-84. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41809-021-00086-5)

Rahmat, N. H. (2020). Thinking about thinking in writing. European Journal of literature, language and linguistics studies, 3(4).

Tyson, J. (2023). Shortcomings of chatgpt. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 3098-3101.