ENGL 339 Blog Post 2: Essid and Cummins’ and Lindberg’s essays

     The articles for this week explore how the divide between students and instructors' opinions on AI have changed over the past couple of years. Usage among students has increased significantly since 2023. While students are using AI more, they have become a bit more skeptical of it in recent years and use it mainly for style improvements, understanding prompts, and research. Some areas where AI remains weak include supplying evidence, questioning sources, and connecting arguments. The general consensus is that AI cannot replace actual in person tutoring/instruction. Lindberg’s article highlights the inconsistencies among professor’s AI policies, which I think reflects the fast-changing nature of these tools that Essid and Cummins’ discussed. Large language models have been advancing far faster than university policies, which means that writing instruction and tutoring have had to adapt quickly. 

    What I gathered from both of these articles is that usage of AI tools like ChatGPT is more about convenience rather than to substitute tutoring. The question of whether or not AI can be seen as an “equitable learning tool” comes up in the first reading, and I have conflicting opinions about the notion. If we’re talking about a group of students who all have access to computers and the internet, then yes–They all have access to the same learning tools that AI may offer. But tutors offer empathetic and context-sensitive feedback, which looks different for every individual student. So I see AI as more of an equal learning tool, rather than equitable. 

     My question is do we think that professors and tutors should integrate AI use into the classroom since students are using it anyway? Or should we be emphasizing the importance of in person learning and tutoring? Maybe both?