The existence of ChatGPT puts a premium on "teaching" rather than just "assigning" writing. The good news is that because writing IS thinking, teaching writing, regardless of discipline is a great way for students to learn in that discipline. chronicle.com/newsletter/tea…
We want students in history to think like historians, biology to think like biologists, etc. The writing experiences in those classes should put a premium on that thinking, rather than settling for the kinds of simulations of learning that are the hallmark of so much of schooling
It's a relatively small thing to reorient the kind of writing that is assigned in a course around thinking and the development of a disciplinary practice. It's mostly making the full scope of the practice (skills, attitudes, knowledge, habits of mind) transparent to students.
Lots of faculty, once they have achieved their level of expertise forget how their disciplinary practice was built over time, via different experiences. Once you reconstruct those things and give students access to them, engagement and rigor increase, more learning happens.
I'm happy and eager to help faculty who want to deepen their students connection with how they write in their disciplines. This is a good thing whether or not ChatGPT exists in the world.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
