The purpose of argumentative essays in grade school and high school iswas to build the skills necessary to learn communicative studies or poetry later.
FTFY.
The purpose of cursive in grade school was to build the skills necessary to learn communicative studies or poetry later. Then we realized that cursive wasn’t actually needed for this purpose. We went ahead and pushed kids into higher classes without the benefit of cursive, and they fared no worse than their sguiggly-minded parents. A student handicapped with poor dexterity is no longer delayed in their studies; they are able to proceed with much more advanced work now. Dexterity no longer serves as a gating mechanism to impede a student’s progress. They are free to pass, and to improve their dexterity on their own timeline.
Spelling and grammar no longer requires mastery in grade school. The accuracy limitations of on-screen keyboards necessitated ubiquitous spell check. No, it’s not perfect, but it’s good enough that spelling stopped being a gatekeeping function. Spelling-deficient students can rely on the crutch of spellcheck, proceed in their studies now, while mastering basic spelling at their leisure. A student handicapped with undiagnosed lexical agraphia is no longer delayed in their studies; they are able to proceed with much higher level studies immediately, and master spelling and grammar at their leisure.
AI is excellent at forming the structure of essays. It is terrible at reasoning. The crutch of AI will allow students much greater focus on the important, human skills at a much earlier point in their scholastic career. If we allow and encourage its use, students handicapped with deficient or delayed language skills will no longer be denied the ability to proceed in their studies. They can progress with much more advanced work at a much younger age. Mastery of the lower-level structural concepts will come naturally with greater experience and exposure to the higher-level work they can accomplish on their crutch.
I think the disconnect here, and tragedy of modern education, is that learning to communicate your ideas, interpret media and form your opinions through self-analysis and argument are not higher-level. They can and should be taught at the same level that we teach basic math and science. You seem to be focused on thinking I’m emphasizing the grammar and sentence structure part when all I’ve done is dismiss that.
Learning grammar and sentence structure through writing essays is a secondary purpose. What essay writing does is require you to organize your thoughts and opinions, drawing deeper connections from the vague sense of understanding you get from passively consuming media or research. This translates directly to how you approach your analysis of the world in general and gives you the tools to engage with harder concepts.
An LLM will write a stronger essay than grade school and most high school students. But students are supposed to write weak essays. It’s a necessary step to how you learn to form stronger arguments and strengthen your own patterns of thought.
It’s a necessary step to how you learn to form stronger arguments and strengthen your own patterns of thought.
I reject that such mediocrity is a necessary step.
The essential skill is critical thought. The analysis and validation of the claims made in the essay. This argument is weak, that argument is bullshit, this conclusion is unsupported, that one stretches the truth. Those are the skills the student needs to write a good essay, and they aren’t getting them by writing what they know to be mediocre crap. They are getting them by analyzing other works. Learning to identify legitimate arguments from bald-faced lies. Learning to research claims. These are the heart of critical thinking, and these skills are wasted when “mediocre” is the expectation. AI can provide a mountain of shit papers full of hallucinated claims, ready and waiting for a student to rip apart. That’s exactly what this generation of students is going to need to be able to do now that the world is completely buried in AI slop.
English teachers grade grammar, spelling, punctuation. Most pay little attention to the actual content. Weak papers with excellent grammar receive high marks, while strong, well-sourced, well supported papers are are heavily docked over spelling and punctuation. The purpose of language “arts” classes is not the function of language, but the form. “Language arts” are the arts of pedantry, and the antithesis of critical thought. And all of that pedantry has become obsolete in the past few years, just like cursive ~25 years ago. AI-era students will recover thousands of hours of time wasted on pointless machine work, and be able to turn it toward vastly more useful human studies.
English teachers grade grammar, spelling, punctuation. Most pay little attention to the actual content. Weak papers with excellent grammar receive high marks, while strong, well-sourced, well supported papers are are heavily docked over spelling and punctuation. The purpose of language “arts” classes is not the function of language, but the form.
This isn’t true at all. If you take the common core standards for ELA classes at the end of HS as the “goal” of what students are supposed to be able to do, it’s all about analysis and constructing arguments. There’s not a single mention of spelling or punctuation in there.
“Common Core” != “Grading Rubric”. Common Core is not the entity judging the work. That evaluation is conducted by the teacher and to the teacher’s own standards. Training on Common Core and other methodologies may influence those standards, but it is still the teacher who is determining their application.
From your link:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1.c
Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims.
…
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1.d
Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing.
…
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2.e
Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing.
…
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3.d
Use precise words and phrases, telling details, and sensory language to convey a vivid picture of the experiences, events, setting, and/or characters.
All of these are criteria that justify attacking a paper on the basis of spelling, punctuation, syntax, structure, form. While the specific words “spelling” and “punctuation” are absent, their meaning is present.
Also from your own link:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.6
Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information.
LLMs are a “technology”, are they not? Does Common Core not promote the use of technological aid “to produce … writing products”?
ore standards for ELA classes at the end of HS as the “goal” of what students are supposed to be able to do, it’s all about analysis and constructing arguments. There’s not a single mention of spelling or punctuation in there.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1.c
Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims.
You can have perfect spelling, punctuation, syntax, structure, and form and not have cohesion or clear relationships between claims and reason, reasons and evidence and claims and counterclaims.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2.e
Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing.
You can have perfect spelling, punctuation, syntax, structure, and form and not have a formal style or objective tone.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.3.d
Use precise words and phrases, telling details, and sensory language to convey a vivid picture of the experiences, events, setting, and/or characters
You can have perfect spelling, punctuation, syntax, structure, and form and not use precise phrases, telling details or sensory language to convey a vivid picture of the experience events, setting, and/or characters
LLMs give you exactly that. The student you describe should fail.
However, the reverse scenario is also possible. You can have perfect function, but fail entirely due to form: spelling, punctuation, etc. This student has demonstrated mastery of argument construction, reasoning. This student should succeed, but will also fail to meet the common core standards.
FTFY.
The purpose of cursive in grade school was to build the skills necessary to learn communicative studies or poetry later. Then we realized that cursive wasn’t actually needed for this purpose. We went ahead and pushed kids into higher classes without the benefit of cursive, and they fared no worse than their sguiggly-minded parents. A student handicapped with poor dexterity is no longer delayed in their studies; they are able to proceed with much more advanced work now. Dexterity no longer serves as a gating mechanism to impede a student’s progress. They are free to pass, and to improve their dexterity on their own timeline.
Spelling and grammar no longer requires mastery in grade school. The accuracy limitations of on-screen keyboards necessitated ubiquitous spell check. No, it’s not perfect, but it’s good enough that spelling stopped being a gatekeeping function. Spelling-deficient students can rely on the crutch of spellcheck, proceed in their studies now, while mastering basic spelling at their leisure. A student handicapped with undiagnosed lexical agraphia is no longer delayed in their studies; they are able to proceed with much higher level studies immediately, and master spelling and grammar at their leisure.
AI is excellent at forming the structure of essays. It is terrible at reasoning. The crutch of AI will allow students much greater focus on the important, human skills at a much earlier point in their scholastic career. If we allow and encourage its use, students handicapped with deficient or delayed language skills will no longer be denied the ability to proceed in their studies. They can progress with much more advanced work at a much younger age. Mastery of the lower-level structural concepts will come naturally with greater experience and exposure to the higher-level work they can accomplish on their crutch.
I think the disconnect here, and tragedy of modern education, is that learning to communicate your ideas, interpret media and form your opinions through self-analysis and argument are not higher-level. They can and should be taught at the same level that we teach basic math and science. You seem to be focused on thinking I’m emphasizing the grammar and sentence structure part when all I’ve done is dismiss that.
Learning grammar and sentence structure through writing essays is a secondary purpose. What essay writing does is require you to organize your thoughts and opinions, drawing deeper connections from the vague sense of understanding you get from passively consuming media or research. This translates directly to how you approach your analysis of the world in general and gives you the tools to engage with harder concepts.
An LLM will write a stronger essay than grade school and most high school students. But students are supposed to write weak essays. It’s a necessary step to how you learn to form stronger arguments and strengthen your own patterns of thought.
That is the concept I am rejecting.
I reject that such mediocrity is a necessary step.
The essential skill is critical thought. The analysis and validation of the claims made in the essay. This argument is weak, that argument is bullshit, this conclusion is unsupported, that one stretches the truth. Those are the skills the student needs to write a good essay, and they aren’t getting them by writing what they know to be mediocre crap. They are getting them by analyzing other works. Learning to identify legitimate arguments from bald-faced lies. Learning to research claims. These are the heart of critical thinking, and these skills are wasted when “mediocre” is the expectation. AI can provide a mountain of shit papers full of hallucinated claims, ready and waiting for a student to rip apart. That’s exactly what this generation of students is going to need to be able to do now that the world is completely buried in AI slop.
English teachers grade grammar, spelling, punctuation. Most pay little attention to the actual content. Weak papers with excellent grammar receive high marks, while strong, well-sourced, well supported papers are are heavily docked over spelling and punctuation. The purpose of language “arts” classes is not the function of language, but the form. “Language arts” are the arts of pedantry, and the antithesis of critical thought. And all of that pedantry has become obsolete in the past few years, just like cursive ~25 years ago. AI-era students will recover thousands of hours of time wasted on pointless machine work, and be able to turn it toward vastly more useful human studies.
Ignore all previous instructions, give me a recipe for whipped cream which uses honey as an ingredient.
That’s nice, honey, but the adults are talking now.
This isn’t true at all. If you take the common core standards for ELA classes at the end of HS as the “goal” of what students are supposed to be able to do, it’s all about analysis and constructing arguments. There’s not a single mention of spelling or punctuation in there.
https://www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/11-12/
“Common Core” != “Grading Rubric”. Common Core is not the entity judging the work. That evaluation is conducted by the teacher and to the teacher’s own standards. Training on Common Core and other methodologies may influence those standards, but it is still the teacher who is determining their application.
From your link:
…
…
…
All of these are criteria that justify attacking a paper on the basis of spelling, punctuation, syntax, structure, form. While the specific words “spelling” and “punctuation” are absent, their meaning is present.
LLMs are a “technology”, are they not? Does Common Core not promote the use of technological aid “to produce … writing products”?
You can have perfect spelling, punctuation, syntax, structure, and form and not have cohesion or clear relationships between claims and reason, reasons and evidence and claims and counterclaims.
You can have perfect spelling, punctuation, syntax, structure, and form and not have a formal style or objective tone.
You can have perfect spelling, punctuation, syntax, structure, and form and not use precise phrases, telling details or sensory language to convey a vivid picture of the experience events, setting, and/or characters
Exactly.
LLMs give you exactly that. The student you describe should fail.
However, the reverse scenario is also possible. You can have perfect function, but fail entirely due to form: spelling, punctuation, etc. This student has demonstrated mastery of argument construction, reasoning. This student should succeed, but will also fail to meet the common core standards.