Creative Writing and How it Relates to Academic Writing

 

Written by Benjamin Fouché

    Often times when we hear the word creative writing, we associate the word specifically with fictional stories, poetry, and perhaps even world-building.  Nevertheless, creative writing is more than simply an artistic outlet for writers; it is a way in which writers can practice the craft of communication and articulation; it is a way in which writers can learn to become more proficient; and it is especially a way in which writers can learn new things and gain self-confidence.  Ultimately, all of this contributes to a writer who is not only great at creative writing but also great at writing in general; this may include emails, resumes, and even academic writing.  Yet this may seem unlikely to some people.  After all, one might ask how—for example—writing a story may be beneficial to students in college and the innumerable papers they are required to write.  But the truth of the matter is that creative writing can indeed be helpful—and helpful in more ways than anyone could possibly imagine.

    According to Patrick T. Randolph of West Michigan University, creative writing has the potential to overall improve a student’s writing abilities.  Randolph explains this after conducting his own research amongst his students when he says:

[…] [A]t my current institute, there is a writing assessment test given at the end of each eight-week term for all the students in the program. In order for the students of the intermediate level to move on, they need a four out of seven to pass. Before the creative writing program was instituted, the number of students who passed to the next level was lower than after I started the program. In general, 50% to 60% of the intermediate students would pass the writing assessment. After the first creative writing course started, the numbers improved dramatically. Currently, 80% to 85% of the students pass the writing assessment, and, in some cases, I have had terms where up to 90% of the level four students move up to level five. It was after this substantial change in the test scores that the administration of the institute decided to permanently keep the creative writing program for the intermediate level writing class (Randolph, 78-79).

Here, we have an outstanding example of creative writing overall benefiting students; without the creative writing program, fewer students passed—yet with it, those numbers rose exponentially.  Thus, it appears that creative writing can be used to help students grow into stronger writers; yet, why is this?  Randolph explores this question further when he says:

Neuro research has also recently […] discovered that fiction excites and stimulates the brain more than academic literature […] If this is true, then the use of creative writing, as a pedagogical tool, is the best way for ESL learners to acquire new vocabulary and sentence structures and to expand their command of the English essay (Randolph, 78).

Randolph brings up another excellent point in that fiction—not academic writing—is something that captivates students—and this ultimately gives them motivation.  Therefore, as they continually write with determination, the skills they develop will eventually manifest in their other, non-creative writing.  Randolph exemplifies this further in his own study when he says:

Another assessment element is that the readers of the writing assessment noted a better command of vocabulary and use of language among the creative writers as compared to the general academic writing classes. The creative writers started using more colorful vocabulary and taking more risks in their writing. For example, instead of using words like ‘nice,’ ‘beautiful, ‘difficult,’ and ‘good,’ they used vocabulary such as ‘delightful,’ ‘breathtaking,’ ‘arduous,’ and ‘embrace.’ Two simple sentences were more likely to be combined to form a compound sentence, and the writing, in general, possessed a richer sense of voice (Randolph, 79).

Subsequently, we may conclude from this that the creative writing program that many of Randolph’s students took had beneficial impacts on their writing skills.  With this increased self-confidence, students would write in ways they normally wouldn’t—thus experimenting and pushing the boundaries of their abilities.  In contrast, students who were only subjected to classes with academic writing were not nearly as creative in how they approached writing.  Therefore, it becomes far more reasonable to believe that creative writing can in fact strengthen and improve a student’s academic writing and stylistic choices.

    Furthermore, this opinion is echoed by Dr. Maria Antoniou and Jessica Moriarty.  In their article entitled “What can academic writers learn from creative writers?”, Antoniou and Moriarty argue the following:

 

In our experience, writing in whatever style or genre is an emotional and identity-related activity, as well as a technical, craft-based one. Writing is intricately linked to a sense of Self (personal and professional), and is a way of expressing that Self. Therefore, writing cannot only be taught in technical terms. Any support and guidance for academic writing must address personal experience and emotional processes (Antoniou and Moriarty, 166).

 

This statement brings up a very crucial component of writing: the writer him or herself.  Indeed, writing is always an expression of one’s mind and thought process.  And because of this, the authors argue that writing should be approached with this understanding.   This is not to say that the technical and structural aspects of writing should be ignored; rather, Antoniou and Moriarty place emphasis on the personal elements of writing and believe that it is actually quite necessary to give writers more creative freedom, as this allows such self-expression to flourish.  Moreover, allowing this will also encourage students (instead of discouraging them) to write their papers.

    Undoubtedly, it is this freedom to express the self that can motivate students to write—but how does it impact their lives personally, as well as their overall attitudes?  This is another crucial question that may illustrate the larger impact of allowing creative writing and choices within the classroom.  Laura Bean of Berkley University of California reflects upon this very question in her article entitled “How Creative Writing Can Increase Students’ Resilience.” By discussing her own experiences with her past students, she is able to demonstrate the effectiveness and positive changes she noticed within her classroom.  Additionally, by discussing the science behind this as well, she is able to give an explanation as to why her implementation of creative writing has been extremely successful.  One particular part of her article touches on these aspects when she says:

 For students, sharing their own stories of bravery, resilience, and determination brings these qualities to the forefront of their minds and helps solidify the belief that underlies a growth mindset: I can improve and grow. We know from research in neuroplasticity that when students take baby steps to achieve a goal and take pride in their accomplishments, they change their brains, growing new neural networks and fortifying existing ones. Neurons in the brain release the feel-good chemical dopamine, which plays a major role in motivating behavior toward rewards.  After writing about a few different personal topics, students choose one they want to publish on the bulletin boards at the back of the classroom. […] In my experience, students are motivated to do this assignment because it helps them feel that their personal stories and emotions truly matter, despite how their other academics are going (Bean). 

Therefore, by granting her students the opportunity to share the work they create, she raises positive outlooks and a sense of inclusion and belonging within her classroom.  Ultimately, this leads to greater confidence amongst her students and far greater enthusiasm.  Perhaps many could learn from Bean’s example—and if schools began incorporating such practices within their curricula around the nation, the positive outcomes would be immeasurable.

    After reviewing these examples of the benefits of creative writing and its contribution to academic success, students and instructors alike ought to feel encouraged to pursue these activities.  Moreover, they might be surprised by the results—and perhaps by what they learn about themselves in the process.

Works Cited:

 

Antoniou, Maria, and Jessica Moriarty. “What Can Academic Writers Learn from Creative Writers? Developing Guidance and Support for Lecturers in Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 13, no. 2, 2008, pp. 157–167., https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510801923229. 

Bean, Laura.  “How Creative Writing Can Increase Students’ Resilience.” Greater Good Magazine, 30 Oct. 2018, https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_creative_writing_can_increase_students_resilience

Randolph, T. Patrick. “Using Creative Writing as a Bridge to Enhance Academic

Writing.” Michigan Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Conference, https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&filename=7&article=1001&context=mitesol&type=additional, 7-8 Oct. 2011.

Will AI Replace Human Tutors and Teachers?

 

Written by Benjamin Fouché

There is no denying that over the past few years, AI has heavily impacted our culture.  With the introduction of sophisticated tools such as ChatGPT, the academic world has been confronted with a very tricky dilemma.  Teachers are struggling to define what is acceptable and unacceptable when it comes to AI assistance.  Some are not opposed to its use (under specific conditions) while others argue against students using it entirely.  And of course, many students are fully taking advantage of these tools while their teachers continue to argue.  Yet there is a question that will likely linger even well after the dust of this 21^st century pandemonium has subsided.  Will AI eventually replace human tutors—and perhaps even teachers?  Indeed, such a question cannot be answered easily, as there are many variables to consider.  Nevertheless, it is certainly a question of grave importance—and especially one that should not be disregarded as simply fearmongering.

First, let us examine what we—at the moment—do currently know.  According to a study conducted by Intelligent.com, it appears that students do in fact favor ChatGPT over human tutors.  Out of the 3,017 high school/college students surveyed, 85.38% preferred using ChatGPT.  Likewise, out of the 3,234 parents of younger children surveyed, 96% preferred ChatGPT over human tutors.  Intelligent.com thus explains that “9 in 10 prefer studying with ChatGPT over studying with a tutor.”  But this still doesn’t tell us enough.  Specifically, for what subjects do students depend upon ChatGPT?  According to the same study, Math and “Hard” Sciences were the top two.  English and Art/Music were the least common subjects for which students consulted ChatGPT (Intelligent.com).  Perhaps this offers a glimmer of hope to tutors in the branches of humanities, which—as the name implies—has a far greater emphasis on the human aspect.

Still, what is incredible (and equally frightening) about these trends is that ChatGPT was only released as recently as November 30^th, 2022 (Marr).  One can only imagine where the technology will be a decade from now—and how it will impact schooling across the globe.

Intelligent.com’s article goes on to share the sentiment of a student named Johnson Adegoke: “As a current student using ChatGPT, I have found it to be a helpful and convenient tool for studying […] Unlike seeing a tutor, ChatGPT is available 24/7 and can answer my questions immediately” (Intelligent.com).  Once more, it should be noted that this is far more representative of Math and “Hard” Science subjects, which possess problems that only have objective/right-or-wrong answers.  Thus, further studies would need to be conducted as to how efficient ChatGPT and other AI tools are at helping students with subject/opinionated answers to questions (such as one’s own personal take on a piece of literature or music). 

Notwithstanding, the student’s response definitely gives an insight into a much larger trend—and the thought process of many students alike.  They see convenience and instant answers to their academic inquiries.  Even so, where students see a savior, many teachers see a machine lacking the most important human elements.  In an article advocating for human teachers over artificial intelligence, author Sarah Hanawald explains the advantages of human beings as instructors when she says:

AI tools can help provide personalized learning for a student but only when directed to do so by a skilled and empathetic teacher. AI cannot discern emotions beyond a coded response, and even a bot “trained” to be supportive will be limited when compared to a human teacher […] Teachers are flexible in adapting their approach to their students’ varying needs and learning styles, flexing their ability to read their students’ emotions, and respond accordingly with empathy and support (Hanawald).

While this may certainly ring true to many teachers and tutors alike, there are others who argue that the cost of AI services such as ChatGPT is far cheaper than tutors—many of whom charge hourly rates (Intelligent.com).  Thus, although the human element of a tutor is undeniable—parents and students will likely choose the cheaper route—especially with the rising costs of basic necessities thanks to inflation (Chiwaya; Milden).  However, it should be noted that many institutions offer free tutoring services to their students—meaning that pricey, hourly rates do not necessarily have to be a concern.  And, despite previous problems with funding, there have been recent efforts starting back during the 2020 pandemic to fund tutoring programs in schools by many state governments (Wall, et al.).

In addition to these concerns, Harvard University began to implement an AI instructor into their coding courses as recently as July of 2023 (NewsNation).  Moreover, Sal Khan of the extremely successful Khan Academy has also endorsed AI tutoring and believes it will have positive, revolutionary impacts on global education (TED).  Still, others would disagree.  Special Education and Inclusive Learning states that AI cannot help teach children “soft skills” and “behavioral/emotional development.”  Furthermore, they claim that the development of emotional skills is also something AI cannot teach children (Special Education and Inclusive Learning).  Thus, it appears that many of the arguments coming from tutors and teachers alike revolve around AI’s lack of genuine empathy and moral support that a human can offer.  Conversely, those in favor of AI—especially students and parents alike—argue that AI is affordable and convenient.  This consequently leads to another question: is the sincere human element more important than expediency and lower prices?

            According to an article from the National Library of Medicine, a human teacher is not only a necessary element—but an extremely crucial one—in the social and emotional development of young students.  This is evident when the authors explain:

Teachers of young students are charged with the task of guiding students toward proficiency in a range of academic topics. At the same time, teachers in the early grades often directly and indirectly instruct students in social-emotional competence, such as how to get along with diverse peers and strategies to focus on and follow directions […] [T]eachers are prime candidates to consider as socializers of emotion-related behaviors (Valiente, et al.).

Again, the human aspect is indeed instrumental in the development of students.  Thus, to replace teachers and tutors with AI instructors would risk children learning and developing the aforementioned soft skills.  For indeed, if especially young students develop their social and emotional abilities through their relationship with human teachers, how will these soft skills develop if their teacher is merely a machine?  It doesn’t seem likely.

It’s also worth noting that as far back as 2014—before this new age of AI commenced—technology had already been a major concern for many people.  Morgan Hampton of Brigham Young University wrote about this at length in an article entitled “Technology: Is it making kids anti-social?”  One of the first problems Hampton addresses is the decline and absence of personal relationships.  She explains that such a void cannot be filled with technology, as “[r]elationships are essential; humans are social creatures. Human nature craves human interaction, and that interaction cannot be effectively replaced by technology” (Hampton).  Another critical factor Hampton brings up is low self-confidence resulting from excessive reliance on technology; she explains that “teaching children the value of personal relationships” is ultimately what will secure their future in a world where technology is central to daily life.

            But while it is quite encouraging to see many people recognizing the significance of human educators and their value in society, there still remain trends that paint a rather grim picture of the future of education.  For instance, Mark C. Perna of Forbes explains that it is a field that very few young people wish to venture into—and one of which few veteran teachers would recommend to younger generations.  Poor workplace environments, few benefits, and extremely low salaries are factors that have contributed to far less people seeking to become educators (Perna).    What’s equally worth noting is that, according to neaToday, current educators are already anticipating leaving their profession early while “[i]n the last 10 years alone, the number of people completing traditional teacher-prep programs has dropped by 35 percent” (Flannery).  It also does not help that educators—due to these shortages—are experiencing “[…] higher levels of anxiety, stress and burnout” (Walker). 

With this in mind, the question remains that if fewer people are becoming teachers—and many teachers are leaving their profession behind—will the implementation of AI instructors become more convenient and cost efficient?  Although it is too soon to fully answer such questions, these are scenarios that should nevertheless be paid close attention to as this decade continues to unfold.  Of course, and as noted earlier, AI may likely be used more heavily in certain branches of education than others.  Whereas Science and Math are shown to be ones for which students most frequently use ChatGPT, students are less likely to use AI assistance with English and Art/Music.  Thus, AI taking over tutoring roles in every field is not likely to happen all at once—nor equally.  But, with that being said, we already see major universities like Harvard implementing AI instructors; this should be concerning, as it certainly sets an historical precedent.  The day might come when some individuals propose AI as a solution to the increasing lack of educators.  Humanity is undoubtedly at a crossroads—and sooner or later, a choice will have to be made on how we wish to educate future generations.  And indeed, we will have to choose soon.

Works Cited:

“How AI Could Save (Not Destroy) Education.” TED, 1 May 2023, https://youtu.be/hJP5GqnTrNo?si=HfujAL2eecuZ_Fcr.

“New Survey Finds Students Are Replacing Human Tutors With ChatGPT.” Intelligent.com, 24 Oct. 2023, https://www.intelligent.com/new-survey-finds-students-are-replacing-human-tutors-with-chatgpt/.

“Why A.I will never replace teachers.” Special Education and Inclusive Learning, https://inclusiveteach.com/2023/07/08/why-a-i-will-never-replace-teachers/. Accessed 4 Mar. 2024.

“Will AI robots replace teachers in the classroom?” NewsNation, 7 July 2023, https://youtu.be/LPOUal0Xvz8?si=SDzKTDHN0OZT_Apo.

Aldeman, Chad. “Why Are Fewer People Becoming Teachers?” Education Next, 28 Sep. 2022, https://www.educationnext.org/why-are-fewer-people-becoming-teachers/.

Chiwaya, Nigel, et al. “Inflation in America: Where are prices rising and falling?” NBC News, 16 June 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/inflation-tracker-how-much-prices-rising-us-consumers-n1296378.

Flannery, Mary Ellen. “Missing: Future Teachers in Colleges of Education.” neaToday, 29 Mar. 2022, https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/missing-future-teachers-colleges-education.

Hampton, Morgan. “Technology: Is it making kids anti-social?” The Daily Universe, 22 Aug. 2014, https://universe.byu.edu/2014/08/22/technology-is-it-making-kids-anti-social/.

Hanawald, Sarah.  “Why Teacher Intelligence Will Always Matter More Than Artificial Intelligence.” Educational Records Bureau, 12 Sep. 2023, https://www.erblearn.org/blog/ai-wont-replace-teacher-intelligence/#:~:text=AI%20tools%20can%20help%20provide,compared%20to%20a%20human%20teacher.

Marr, Bernard. “A Short History Of ChatGPT: How We Got To Where We Are Today.” Forbes, 19 May 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/05/19/a-short-history-of-chatgpt-how-we-got-to-where-we-are-today/?sh=574cf95a674f.

Milden, Dashia, et al. “Inflation Rose in January to 3.1%, Dimming the Prospects for Interest Rate Cuts in March.” CNET, 14 Feb. 2024, https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/banking/advice/inflation-interest-rates/.

Perna, Mark C. “No More Teachers: The Epic Crisis Facing Education In 2024.” Forbes, 3 Jan. 2024, https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcperna/2024/01/03/no-more-teachers-the-epic-crisis-facing-education-in-2024/.

Valiente, Carlos, et al. “Emotion-Related Socialization in the Classroom: Considering the Roles of Teachers, Peers, and the Classroom Context.” National Library of Medicine, 1 Mar. 2021, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7041856/.

Wall, Patrick, et al. “Tutoring help reaches few students despite nationwide push.” Chalkbeat, 10 March 2023, https://www.chalkbeat.org/2023/3/10/23629236/learning-loss-tutoring-students-pandemic-funds-covid/.

Walker, Tim. “Getting Serious About Teacher Burnout.” neaToday, 12 Nov. 2021, https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/getting-serious-about-teacher-burnout.