I keep playing with AI, but the error rate is extraordinary. I have yet to ask one of these tools a single question without finding an error somewhere in the answer.

Here’s an example from a student’s AI-assisted paper: “From the vibrant Yoruba marketplace to the silent void of Elesin’s prison cell, the play unfolds as an exploration of liminality — those fragile thresholds where life and death, duty and hesitation, individual and communal all collide.”

AI is subtly teaching students to think of themselves as irrelevant in every possible way.

AI is subtly teaching students to think of themselves as irrelevant in every possible way.

Like this line generated for me by Stanford University’s Storm app: “The novel The Palm-Wine Drinkard has been recognized for its contributions to both Nigerian literature and the global literary landscape, symbolizing the complexity of African narratives in the face of colonial legacies.”

AI-assisted papers often refer to something once by its proper name and then substitute it throughout the rest of the paper with referents.

That is a sentence. It is grammatically correct. It has no typos. It is snappily short. It is on topic for the course. And ... it means nothing. AI tossed together extremely common phrases — “home to” and “some of” and “world’s most” — to sound good. Then it appended an empty phrase. What are “diverse literary works”? And what makes an individual work “the most diverse”? It deploys many genres? Includes words in many languages? Depicts many ethnicities interacting? In fact, very few texts do any of those things. Which doesn’t matter, because Africa could have two such texts and still have “some of” the world’s “most diverse” texts.

Students continue to believe that brainstorming with AI helps them get to good arguments, but I have not seen any proof of that.

banal

But producing a generation that can’t write — which means, in a profound way, a generation that can’t think

Because AI is a relatively recent development, research on AI-assisted writing is still in its early stages. There is limited empirical data on the long-term effects of AI on student learning and cognitive development.

The ethical concerns surrounding AI-assisted writing primarily revolve around plagiarism, originality, and academic integrity.

using AI for mechanical improvements while relying on traditional methods to develop argumentation and analytical reasoning. Such an approach is likely to yield the best learning outcomes for students.

To address the limitations discussed above, future research should emphasize longitudinal empirical studies that examine the impact of AI writing tools on learning outcomes and skill retention. Tracking students across multiple academic years would provide clearer insights into how these tools influence writing development, critical thinking, and overall academic performance. Comparative studies between students who use AI writing tools and those who rely on traditional instruction could also clarify the differential effects on writing proficiency and long-term retention. Broadening the scope of research beyond higher education is equally important. Examining how AI affects secondary students, non-native English speakers, and professionals in diverse fields would help educators and policymakers understand its influence across varied populations, enabling more targeted and inclusive integration strategies.

4.7. Limitations of the Current Review

breadth

To ensure that students can build and maintain a strong foundation in critical thinking and argumentation, educators must design assignments that require deeper engagement with writing [12,21].

pedagogical

Instructors should emphasize the use of AI for immediate guidance, while designing assignments that promote reflective and analytical writing practices, fostering independent learning and lasting skill development [32].

Moreover, AI tools are effective in facilitating large-scale writing improvement, particularly in educational institutions with high student-to-instructor ratios, where individualized feedback from instructors is challenging to provide. In comparison, traditional instruction relies heavily on teacher involvement, which can limit the ability to provide all students with immediate and individualized assistance [20].

Effective instructors can identify students’ weaknesses, offer detailed explanations, and foster improvements through various writing assignments. This personalized approach helps students refine their writing over time and foster a deeper understanding of the principles of strong writing [21].

4.5.1. Impact on Learning Outcomes

They also encourage students to critically evaluate AI-generated content and use their reasoning and creativity to expand on the writing by adding their own perspectives.

Some professors encourage the use of AI-assisted tools to supplement student assignments.

Not all students see AI writing tools as purely beneficial [12]. Many have expressed concerns that these tools can undermine critical thinking, logical reasoning, and creativity [21,23].

By striking a balance between AI assistance and human creativity, writers can harness the power of technology while preserving their ability to think critically and express themselves effectively [7,13,16].

Some institutions have already updated their academic integrity policies to address AI-related concerns, introducing AI-detection software and stricter guidelines on AI-assisted writing [6,19].

Additionally, there are several concerns about plagiarism and the authenticity of AI writing. Most AI tools utilize information from internet sources but often fail to verify factual accuracy or properly credit sources [28].

Writing is not only about assembling words into sentences that make sense; it is also about engaging with the material in a way that encourages students to analyze information critically and apply independent reasoning to the subject matter [28]

Are students truly engaging in the writing process, or are they merely depending on this technology to fulfill course requirements?

We conducted a narrative review by systematically searching three academic databases, EBSCOhost, ERIC, and JSTOR, to identify relevant studies on the role of AI tools in academic writing.

They can even generate entire essays and help students formulate arguments, saving the students significant time and improving their language use, accuracy, and coherence, among other benefits [12].

Specifically, this paper will explore the following topics: (1) the impact of AI writing tools on students’ ability to develop independent writing skills and critical thinking; (2) the benefits and limitations of AI-assisted writing tools in improving grammar, coherence, and argumentation; (3) the perceptions of students and educators regarding the effectiveness of AI writing tools in higher education; (4) the ethical concerns raised by AI-assisted writing, including issues related to plagiarism, originality, and academic integrity; (5) the comparison between AI-based writing tools and traditional instructional methods in terms of learning outcomes and skill improvement; and (6) the best practices for integrating AI tools into writing curricula to optimize student learning outcomes.

As a result, they are now increasingly regarded as critical parts of the writing process, particularly for writers who may face challenges with the linguistic and structural aspects of writing [17,18].

if AI is conducting the research and writing, will students be able to develop necessary analytical and writing skills independently? Although the answer remains uncertain, this is a critical issue that warrants further investigation [12,23].

The findings reveal that although AI tools can be detrimental to the development of writing skills, they can foster self-directed learning and improvement when carefully integrated into coursework.

Many teachers are concerned that this erodes critical thinking skills and undermines ethical considerations since students are not performing the work themselves. This study addresses this concern by synthesizing and evaluating peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of AI in supporting writing pedagogy.

As educators, we willgreatly advance our students if we provide intense instructionin Standard English. Alternatively, those well intentionedteachers who choose to withhold such instruction forwhatever reason will likely disadvantage their students andvisit real-world harm to satisfy an impulse that very well mayinvolve egocentric virtue signaling.

On a more practical level, such qualitiescan improve human lives wholesale through the exchange ofideas, advancement of thought, and facilitation of trade.

Standardized communication will likely benefit allpractitioners; however, all groups struggle to attaincompetencies in SAEA because it is a dialect separate fromall others.

Very recently, though, some scholars have resurrectedarguments rooted in the 1970‟s. These arguments questionthe established practice of supporting Standard LanguageIdeologies, and perhaps the most direct and visibleopposition to embracing Standard English of late hasemerged from Dr. Asao B. Inoue, the past President of theConference on College Communication and Composition(CCCC) and keynote speaker at the 2019 CCCC

That Subject A examoperated until the early twenty-first century when thenomenclature changed to the Analytical Writing PlacementExam (AWPE)

The traditionalresponse is remarkably pragmatic: Students with such skillsare far more likely to excel in courses that use Standard5 One need look no further than Ferdinand de Saussure‟s famous textCourse in General Linguistics and the poignant concept of sign and signifier.The greater the linguistic difference between sign and signifier leads to thegreater the possibility of slippage between sign and signifier.English textbooks, rely on lectures in English, and routinelyassign papers to be submitted in English.

In the“Report of The National Commission on Writing forAmerica‟s Families, Schools, and Colleges” generated byCollege Board in September of 2004, writing was recognizedas a “‟threshold skill‟ for both employment and promotion,particularly salaried employees.” (3) [14]. The surveyconsidered 120 major American corporations thatrepresented almost eight million workers.

Smith is one of the more recentscholars to forward such a particularly lucid example of theantagonism towards Standard English, but Smith‟s argumentis notable and potent because the authors suggest changes tothe mechanism of testing.4

Melinda J. McBee Orzulak, for example,supports the idea that Deficit Language Ideologies – the ideathat Englishes that diverge from Standard English –“marginalize nondominant groups and promote dominantgroups‟ interests” (180), presumably both within the confinesof education and in society at large [12]. Embracing apedagogical approach that places Standard English in aseminal position in the composition classroom, according toOrzulak, wouldFurther advocate for linguistic separatism by ignoringthe realities of code-meshing. One aspect of deficitlanguage ideology is the belief that if something is not“standard” English, it is not grammatical or that sloppypeople use sloppy grammar. (180)

Displacinginstructional time to accommodate code-meshing andcode-switching has the unfortunate byproduct of limitinginstruction in Standard English and introducing linguisticconcepts that actually interfere with Standard Englishacquisition. As a result, students may be placed at adisadvantage in acquiring the linguistic skills necessary tojoin in the Burkean parlor.

Ultimately, composition classes are limited in scope, soinstructors must make practical decisions about what will beemphasized and what will be ignored.

“it seems useful to ask them [students] to not onlymesh codes, but to consider the politically-charged origins ofthe „codes‟ they employ, and to think about ways in whichthey might interrogate – and even construct – these codes interms of their specific personal, cultural, and rhetoricalsituations” (283).

In other words,Standard English provides a platform for inclusivity that isarguably absent in multiple Englishes.

The potential pitfall of code-meshing and the subtledisplacement of Standard English rests in a slippery slope asit can apply to instruction in the composition classroom;

Even champions ofcode-meshing, like John Vance,

If Cochran-Smith et al. are correct,then instructors might be inclined to traverse the slipperyslope of validating code-meshing, an approach thatinvalidates the concept of Standard English, and, arguably,generates confusion about the role of Standard English andexpectations around Standard English.

“In point of fact, it was argued that Black English is justas linguistically and functionally systematic as white English

Is Standard English racist? Oppressive?

current criticism in Composition/Rhetoricthat addresses the linguistic construct of multiple Englishesand their relationship to Standard English, most especially asthe relationship is conceived in American higher education

admonishment

ubiquitous

The Lord came down to see the city and the tower thatthe men had built. Then the Lord said: ”If now, whilethey are one people, all speaking the same language,they have started to do this, nothing will later stop themfrom doing whatever they presume to do. Let us then godown and there confuse their language, so that one willManuscript received September 9, 2019; revised January 21, 2020.Paul A. J. Beehler is with the University of California Riverside, UnitedStates (e-mail: paulb@ucr.edu).not understand what another says.”

In this archetypal story, people are remarkably productiveand industrious specifically because of their reliance on acommon language.

This response considers an excerpt of Dr.Inoue’s speech and then ultimately refutes the argument thatStandard English should be abandoned

Rodolfo Jacobson, PatriciaCunningham, and James Sledd

bstract—Scholarly debates about Standard English in the1970’s were, in part, instigated by the 1969 Task Force onRacism and Bias in the Teaching of English.