CFP: Bad Ideas about AI and Writing
ten grrl
Bad Ideas about AI and Writing: Toward Generative Practices
for Teaching, Learning, and Communication
Edited by:
Christopher Basgier
Anna Mills
Mandy Olejnik
Miranda Rodak
Shyam Sharma
First released in 2017, Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe’s collection Bad Ideas About Writing sought to overturn persistent myths about writing that circulate publicly and lead to problematic curriculum, pedagogy, and learning. As Ball and Loewe put it, “These publics deserve clearly articulated and well-researched arguments about what is not working, what must die, and what is blocking progress in current understandings of writing” (p. 1). Today, public and institutional conversations about writing are increasingly inflected by generative artificial intelligence (AI) applications such as ChatGPT. Unfortunately, such conversations often include bad ideas about AI, by which we mean ideas that are patently false, ideas with logical leaps that do not hold up under scrutiny, or ideas that are both accurate and logical but lack nuance or include implications that are unethical or downright harmful. Some such bad ideas may exist because of, or exacerbate, existing bad ideas about writing; others may add to the repertoire of bad ideas about writing. Therefore, this collection seeks to reframe bad ideas about AI and writing to provide more generative (that is, evidence-based, logical, constructive, ethical, and compassionate) practices for teaching and learning writing, with or without AI, now and in the future. In so doing, this collection also strives to base its discussions on established and emerging principles and theories of writing pedagogy.
We anticipate that the collection will be organized around the effects of myths about AI and writing on different groups of stakeholders. Sample ideas may include:
Bad ideas that impact students
AI “writes well” and so can be used to produce texts across all disciplines
Writing assignments are easy with generative AI
AI is always a valid, unbiased source of truth
AI generates original ideas like humans
Students naturally want to cheat with AI
All AI use is a form of plagiarism
AI generates valid citations
Any AI use detracts from student learning and voice
Bad ideas that impact teachers
Instructors should never permit AI in their courses
The only way to prepare students for the future is for all instructors to use AI in their classes
AI use inevitably works against teaching critical thinking
It is okay to feed student work into AI for grading assistance
Instructors cannot hold students accountable for AI use
AI policies are more important than pedagogy to prevent AI abuse
AI levels the playing field for students who haven’t mastered Standardized Edited American English
AI means students have to think and struggle less
Bad ideas that impact administrators
Institutions must either ban or embrace AI
AI is a pedagogical or research issue, so it will radically reduce administrative roles
AI detectors are valid sources of evidence in plagiarism accusations
AI-driven cost savings will not conflict with institutional missions
AI will replace universities
Bad ideas that impact writing programs (including first-year composition [FYC], writing across the curriculum [WAC], and writing centers)
AI can replace writing instruction
AI tutors are as good as peer tutors
AI negates the need for FYC, WAC, etc.
Bad ideas that impact organizations, communities, and publics
AI is the great equalizer
AI reads, understands, and writes texts as a human would
AI will replace all human experts
AI is capable of understanding and using all human languages
AI is neutral in terms of cultural difference and political bias
AI will help nonnative English speakers overcome their language challenges
AI is inherently good, bad, or neutral
Humans cannot identify AI misuse; only machines can
It is hard to distinguish AI text from human writing, so we might as well give up
We invite 250-word proposals on these topics or others. Proposals should 1) name the bad idea about AI pertaining to writing that will be the focus of the chapter, 2) explain how this idea impacts one of the above groups, the work they do, or an educational mission relevant to them, and 3) reframe the bad idea with a focus on articulating a generative idea or practice that can be used in teaching, learning, communication, or the work of writing education more broadly. These “better ideas” about AI and writing should be situated in principles and practices established in rhetoric, composition, writing, or literacy research. Although many of the suggested topics above impact many stakeholders, we ask that you focus predominantly on one group of stakeholders in your proposal. Please note that we anticipate final chapters to be brief, in the 1000- to 2000-word range (excluding references), so craft your proposals accordingly.
Although the primary audience of Bad Ideas About AI and Writing will be teachers, scholars, and administrators in rhetoric, composition, and writing studies, we do anticipate a broader readership. Therefore, proposals (and eventual chapters) should be written in a style that will be accessible to readers from a range of educational backgrounds, social positions, and nationalities.
Please submit your proposals to badide...@gmail.com by March 29, 2024. In cases where proposals overlap significantly, we may ask contributors to collaborate on a chapter.
Tentative Timeline:
March 29, 2024 Proposals due
May 10, 2024 Editors’ decisions provided & invitations sent
July 12, 2024 First chapter drafts due
September 15, 2024 Feedback on chapters provided
November 15, 2024 Revisions due
December 31, 2024 Entire manuscript sent out for review