Couldn't agree more. This pice nails it perfectly. Teaching prompt acronyms is just scaffolding, not the foundation. As a CS teacher, I constantly see the need for genuine understanding over simple frameworks. We need to teach the 'why', not just the 'how'. Brilliant.
Agreed. I have also been teaching my design history students to write "good" conversations. And of course, to be aware of what makes a "good" conversation. It's hard for the beginning student to know what good writing looks like when it seems they've been reading so much social media content written by AI. Or, writing that is simply full of banal truisms. Thanks for writing this approach up and doing the ongoing research. I do wonder a bit about why composition is the starting date for you... What changes in 1896 that you discard the writing of earlier thinkers? It's psychologized and self-aware in a way that helps you learn how to teach?
Good question. 1869 is the first year that Composition Studies were rolled out as a formal discipline (at Harvard). It had been rolled out at Oxford in 1810, which is really the beginning of composition studies, but for American purposes I go to 1869.
And, I don't mean that I am discarding the writing of earlier thinkers. Of course composition studies built heavily on Aristotelian principles of rhetoric and Socratic concepts of inquiry. But that's the first year (in American education) where institutions said, "We're going to teach writing as a skill, on its own." Prior to that, as I understand it, writing was taught as a means to an end. A way to communicate laws, a way to persuade a judge in a courtroom, a way to move the masses via oration, etc etc. I like to imagine the first Composition professors at Harvard looking at each other like, "Ok, so what is this exactly?" That's where I think we are with teaching AI conversations as pieces of text worthy of analysis/new forms of media. We've always had relationships with technology - we will build on past research around our relationships to other forms of media (TV, radio, social media, newspapers), but we'll have to design what is ultimately a new discipline unto itself -- AI transcript studies (still workshopping some names). It would live at the intersection of media studies, literature and composition studies, american studies, art, and perhaps history as well. It's basically a new Humanities discipline.
Cool, I think there might be value in dating it as a much older thing. One thing we have lost in the technoutopia is the understanding and value of deeper time. You are probably right in seeing that as the start of a new era, I just read a bunch about how art education similarly changed at that time. Also called composition, by the way. And I do wonder if the slide away from writing / art making toward a meaningful end is problematic, or as a historian, at least it should not be assumed to be "progress." As we lose context, we lose meaning. But overall my message should be, thanks for writing and doing thoughtful work in a much needed area.
Important contribution. Publishing/research celebrates non-commonsense revelations, but I think forgetting the common sense / the hidden in plain sight ideas is more costly. Thanks for taking us to the basics.
Thanks Shubham. Appreciate the kind words and support. And yes, sometimes it can be hard to see what is plain. We tend to overthink things when it is important to go back to the basics. Thanks for your comment.
Couldn't agree more. This pice nails it perfectly. Teaching prompt acronyms is just scaffolding, not the foundation. As a CS teacher, I constantly see the need for genuine understanding over simple frameworks. We need to teach the 'why', not just the 'how'. Brilliant.
Thanks Roxy! I'd love to find some organizations interested in exploring this concept. If you know any research funders, feel free to pass it along!
Agreed. I have also been teaching my design history students to write "good" conversations. And of course, to be aware of what makes a "good" conversation. It's hard for the beginning student to know what good writing looks like when it seems they've been reading so much social media content written by AI. Or, writing that is simply full of banal truisms. Thanks for writing this approach up and doing the ongoing research. I do wonder a bit about why composition is the starting date for you... What changes in 1896 that you discard the writing of earlier thinkers? It's psychologized and self-aware in a way that helps you learn how to teach?
Good question. 1869 is the first year that Composition Studies were rolled out as a formal discipline (at Harvard). It had been rolled out at Oxford in 1810, which is really the beginning of composition studies, but for American purposes I go to 1869.
And, I don't mean that I am discarding the writing of earlier thinkers. Of course composition studies built heavily on Aristotelian principles of rhetoric and Socratic concepts of inquiry. But that's the first year (in American education) where institutions said, "We're going to teach writing as a skill, on its own." Prior to that, as I understand it, writing was taught as a means to an end. A way to communicate laws, a way to persuade a judge in a courtroom, a way to move the masses via oration, etc etc. I like to imagine the first Composition professors at Harvard looking at each other like, "Ok, so what is this exactly?" That's where I think we are with teaching AI conversations as pieces of text worthy of analysis/new forms of media. We've always had relationships with technology - we will build on past research around our relationships to other forms of media (TV, radio, social media, newspapers), but we'll have to design what is ultimately a new discipline unto itself -- AI transcript studies (still workshopping some names). It would live at the intersection of media studies, literature and composition studies, american studies, art, and perhaps history as well. It's basically a new Humanities discipline.
Let me know your thoughts?
Cool, I think there might be value in dating it as a much older thing. One thing we have lost in the technoutopia is the understanding and value of deeper time. You are probably right in seeing that as the start of a new era, I just read a bunch about how art education similarly changed at that time. Also called composition, by the way. And I do wonder if the slide away from writing / art making toward a meaningful end is problematic, or as a historian, at least it should not be assumed to be "progress." As we lose context, we lose meaning. But overall my message should be, thanks for writing and doing thoughtful work in a much needed area.
Fair points all around. If you have links to the art education content, I'd love to see it. Thanks for engaging and for the support!
Important contribution. Publishing/research celebrates non-commonsense revelations, but I think forgetting the common sense / the hidden in plain sight ideas is more costly. Thanks for taking us to the basics.
Thanks Shubham. Appreciate the kind words and support. And yes, sometimes it can be hard to see what is plain. We tend to overthink things when it is important to go back to the basics. Thanks for your comment.