According to a 2024 survey from the Digital Education Board, one in four students use generative AI daily on classwork or homework. As a way to try to counter its use on writing assignments, many English teachers on campus have implemented more on-demand writing because it allows them to regulate student access to outside resources. This is an fair reaction to concerns about usage of generative AI on schoolwork, as timed writing can guarantee the authenticity of assignments.
However, although on-demand writing prevents students from shortcutting assignments, it can also prevent students from writing with fully developed ideas that reflect their true knowledge, thinking, and abilities.
Assessing on-demand writing in English classes doesn’t necessarily reflect a student’s true understanding of a subject. The 2020 article, “Four Empirically Based Reasons Not To Administer Time-Limited Tests.” explains how timed tests don’t assess students’ performance, but instead track their rate of work. Timed assessments, such as on demands, value quick recall and encourage students to regurgitate information, instead of utilizing the writing process. This is a dangerous path to go down, as the writing process is incredibly connected to critical thinking skills. According to the Purdue Global article, “Writing to Think: Critical Thinking and the Writing Process,” the writing process is, in essence, critical thinking, as it requires analysis, asking questions, and evaluating a topic beyond surface level. By not allowing students to follow the writing process, they may not have the opportunity to develop proper critical thinking skills.
Furthermore, the writing process is utilized in most writing outside of school. The University of Kansas describes the writing process as six steps: Prewriting, Research, Drafting, Revising, Editing and Proofreading. From research papers, to essays, to articles, the human history of great writing has always been thought out, using these processes to create the best work possible and it takes time. Great writing isn’t meant to be completed in a single sitting, but should be evolved over time through feedback and editing. By limiting writing to what students can produce in a limited amount of time, they aren’t able to revise and edit what they write over a long period of time, leading to lower quality of work. But, more importantly, they are robbed of the opportunity of writing as a means to greater understanding.
A study from the International Journal of Social Science and Educational Studies found that after testing student’s quality of work following feedback, revision significantly improves writing in both tested groups of 45 students. Without the ability to revise during on-demand writing, students may end up with incomplete ideas, demonstrating their first attempt at tackling a subject instead of a more thoughtfully developed idea that demands they truly grapple with a complex web of ideas. That second attempt and the extended time given for writing is incredibly important, as it allows students to further elaborate on their writing as well as refine ideas that don’t make sense.
This shift towards more on-demand writing is sensible, since once the student leaves the classroom, there’s no foolproof way to combat AI usage. However, if writing continues to be reduced to what can be produced in a small period of time, students may lose the ability to sit with their thoughts in a way that allows them to improve their ideas. Instead, they are rewarded for quick thinking over deep analysis.
At Westview, English teachers are working towards new instructional methods to include the writing process in more classwork, instead of resorting to on demand writing. By allowing students to continually work on an assessment solely in class throughout a longer period of time, instead of writing the assessment in one sitting, students receive more time to redraft and edit, and the use of AI is prevented, as teachers are able to monitor students more effectively. For example, in Honors Humanities, students are allowed to work on a research thesis over the course of multiple weeks in class. They’re able to attain feedback from teachers and may revise in class, leading to a clearer and more cohesive finished product. With this approach, English classes can limit the use of AI while continuing to support students’ development of their writing and critical thinking skills.
We applaud teachers who care enough about their students to take risks like these new teaching methods while working to ensure cognitive development doesn’t suffer in the face of the destructive allure of generative AI.
