Grammarly, the company that provides the eponymous grammar and syntax program, recently announced that it’s getting smarter and now offers “strategic suggestions” for its 30 million users. It might not be an innovation that helps the company.
As Grammarly gains more generative capabilities, its usefulness for students declines because it will place them at risk for unnecessary academic discipline.
In a story that’s gone viral, University of North Georgia student Marley Stevens ended up on academic probation for using Grammarly on her criminal justice essay. Stevens said her professor accused her of “unintentionally cheating” on her academic work because she used the program to proofread her paper.
Stevens received a zero for the assignment, which she said put her scholarship at risk. Under Stevens’ TikTok video, comments indicated that she’s not the only student who’s been penalized for Grammarly use.
Stevens’ case shows the murkier world of using artificial intelligence in schools – using it as an aid, a resource, rather than a replacement for one’s work. Until now, discussions of AI’s use in academics focused on its potential for plagiarism, the act of simply representing an AI product as one’s own work, which is admittedly indefensible. Researchers from Stanford University say that concern is overblown.
At my school, Deerfield Academy in Massachusetts, the use of generative AI is prohibited.
Grammarly hasn’t been necessarily generative in the ways we think of that type of intelligence; it couldn’t write a student’s essay like ChatGPT can. But now the “strategic suggestions” make the program more generative in nature – and more likely to fall under general AI bans.
Here’s the rub, though: Many schools encourage and even pay for students to use Grammarly. It's expressly promoted in at least 3,000 educational institutions that have signed up for institutional accounts, according to Grammarly.
In Stevens’ case, the University of North Georgia promoted Grammarly on its website then removed it, then placed it on its website again.
High school seniors need help:Why the college application process isn't adding up for students
While individual schools should be allowed to create their own policies, we are headed for a situation where what’s considered cheating is allowed at one school and not at another. Or in one course and not another.
That’s a problem because academic integrity is universal. Or at least it’s supposed to be.
Whatever the rule is on using Grammarly, I will abide by it, but I notice that the concern over the type of assistance Grammarly provides hearkens back to the debate over calculator use in schools.
Back in the 1970s, some educators and parents worried that calculators might supplant math lessons. Research shows that they never did. It took 50 years, but with calculators now required in some courses and tests, we know that assistive technology doesn’t necessarily replace basic lessons – or do our work for us.
We now prioritize agility of thought and creativity over memorization; that’s why some schools rid themselves of spelling tests in favor of critical thinking.
Will my student loan be forgiven?Prepare for disappointment and hardship. Grace period for repayments expire in September.
If anything, these devices and programs allow deeper learning, mostly because they’re used by students who are well past the age of initial math functions and grammar lessons. If anything, Grammarly is a refresher on grammar lessons of years past.
Technically, autocorrect is a form of AI, but holding its use against a student whose typos were fixed would be overkill and defeat the purpose of these programs, which were created to meet the needs of education’s evolution.
Whether using Grammarly constitutes cheating is a multibillion dollar question that remains unanswered; it's an ethical question that intersects with school finance. Use of Grammarly might cause students to lose scholarships, and schools don’t refund tuition if a student is expelled and that student may owe student loans. On top of that are the opportunity costs of being accused of cheating.
Marley Stevens’ fight wages on, but Grammarly donated $4,000 to her GoFundMe to assist her education.
Beyond Stevens’ case, though, technology companies that provide programs to students need to consider how making their products more generative will create more problems for students who use them. And teachers and schools that ban these programs need to consider what kind of learning they want from students.
Ultimately – in all areas, not just education – AI is a case of making sure our technology does not outpace our integrity or call into question honest work. Otherwise, we all may be cheating. Or worse, not learning as much as we can.
William Tang is a high school junior at Deerfield Academy and serves on the school’s Honor Committee.
Using a grammar tool is 'unintentionally cheating'? How is that fair?
5
1
17.04.2024
Grammarly, the company that provides the eponymous grammar and syntax program, recently announced that it’s getting smarter and now offers “strategic suggestions” for its 30 million users. It might not be an innovation that helps the company.
As Grammarly gains more generative capabilities, its usefulness for students declines because it will place them at risk for unnecessary academic discipline.
In a story that’s gone viral, University of North Georgia student Marley Stevens ended up on academic probation for using Grammarly on her criminal justice essay. Stevens said her professor accused her of “unintentionally cheating” on her academic work because she used the program to proofread her paper.
Stevens received a zero for the assignment, which she said put her scholarship at risk. Under Stevens’ TikTok video, comments indicated that she’s not the only student who’s been penalized for Grammarly use.
Stevens’ case shows the murkier world of using artificial intelligence in schools – using it as an aid, a resource, rather than a replacement for one’s work. Until now, discussions of AI’s use in academics focused on its potential for plagiarism, the act of simply representing an AI product as one’s own work,........
© USA TODAY
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
