Student Note, Teary-Eyed Instructor

I read this note today as part of a student's final essay submission in my BYUI English class.

In case you can't read it:

I would like to start off by saying how awesome a teacher you are. I looked forward to seeing your comments on every essay I wrote for this class. Before I started writing this, I looked at the grades page to see how good a grade I'd need to get ot pass, and saw that you wrote a message basically asking if I'm ok, and that was such a nice thing to say. I've had a pretty bad month and lost almost all motivation to do almost anything, and seeing that really helped me have the motivation to do this. I'm sorry I didn't do the annotated bibliography. I did some, but never finished it. If it is a necessary prerequisite for this, I will finish it. I swear this is not trying to butter you up or anything like that I'm just thankful that you are who you are. Also, it's so cool that you enjoy fantasy books too. I would have messaged back on that comment you sent me, but I honestly don't know how. I never really had a great experience with online teacher, with most of them just seeming like grading machines, but I love that you still put effort into getting to know your students, even though it's online. If this is inappropriate or stupid, please ignore it, but I just wanted to say thank you.

Blew me away.

This is a student who struggled, obviously. I reached out to him just to see what was going on, and never heard back. I guess I shouldn't assume these digital natives are all that digital or all that native. But I'm glad I did reach out, even if he didn't know how to reach back.

News: He did pass the class, and not out of pity. He wrote a good final paper.

In the future: I will continue reaching out, especially to students who are struggling. I should probably pick up the phone and get past my own hang-ups and just see what I can do to help, much earlier on than I did in this instance. Lesson learned: He could probably have done better if I'd reached out sooner. Note for me on that.

Also a note to students: Teachers may be struggling too. I really wanted to take this semester off, as I have wanted to take the last few off. I'm really feeling the burnout. But we needed the money, so I bit the bullet and took the class on. Now, at the end of it, I'm glad I did.

A Proust Moment for My Students

I'm going to age myself a bit here -- like you don't already know I'm an old man -- and mention that I grew up in the age of the cathode ray tube.

That's what televisions were made of, back in the day before the liquid crystal and plasma displays we use and take for granted today. I love how light the modern displays are, because those old ones, with the massive glass and metal cathode ray tubes in them, they were *heavy*.

But one quick sentence I spotted on social media helped me remember something about those old CRTs that I'd experienced many times, but had since forgotten:

If you own a CRT, or happen to know someone who does, or are one of those people who collect CRTs, maybe you know this. But here's what this is talking about:

With the television on, the action of that beam of electrons that creates the moving images on the screen, stray electrons in the form of static electricity collect on the outside of the screen. Rub your fingers against the screen and you can feel the static electicity as it discharges into your body, making the screen feel as if it's furry.

When I read that, I was instantly transported back to the house I grew up in, in all its 1970s glory with the orange shag carpeting, the wood paneling, the yellow kitchen with the blue linoluem floor, and that gigantic television, heavy in its wooden case, that did indeed have fur when you wiped your hand across the glass.

Why am I telling you this?

As you write your own essays, I encourage you to immerse yourself in the time you're writing about. Most of you are writing about a memory. I want you to feel that memory. Pull up any photos you might have of that time, that place. Maybe you wrote a social media post about it, or even an old-fashioned letter. Pull up whatever digital or physical memories you have of that event, and remind yourself what it was like being there. Feel that memory's fur.

One more thing, then I'll go:

French writer Marcel Proust wrote a book called "Remembrance of Things Past," a seven-volune(!) work in which Proust recalls memories of his own childhood and growing experiences. One of the most famous passages from the book is known as the "episode of the madeleine."

To summarize (Proust does go on about it), Proust is fretting over a task as he's having a cup of tea. He puts a bit of a cake called a medeleine in the tea and eats it -- triggering a flood of memory of doing the same things as a younger boy in his Aunt Leonie's house.

We all have a Proust moment in our memory, it's just a matter of finding a way to bring it to the surface. For me, it was a social media post about how TVs used to have fur.

A Week In: How's It Going?

You may recall my whining a week ago about suddenly being surprised with a BYUI teaching contract this semester. How are things going? That is the tale I am about to tell.

It's . . . okay. I'd still rather have the semester off. However, as I mentioned previously the money is welcome. And I do have a refreshing mix of students, most of whom appear to be concurrent enrollment students who are also in high school. They tend to be pretty motivated individuals, which always helps.

Not that my other students aren't motivated. Maybe motivated and surrounded by privilege is the better way to put it. And not in a bad way. They just don't have the struggles that my typical mix of students have.

Trying not to put too much detail in there, I guess . . .

I have spent two long evenings this week with student conferences, something I really did not want to do. But I've put on the stiff upper lip and done it. I have more to do Friday and Saturday, but I can see the end of them now. I also gave myself a break Tuesday and Thursday, so I'm not doing them every day this week. That meant more piled into Monday and Wednesday, but it was worth it.

WHAT KIND OF FRIEND ARE YOU!

As some of you may know, in addition to my full-time job I teach online English at BYU-Idaho.

Last month, with enrollment looking to be lower than expected, I was offered a Level Three contract for this semester, meaning the chance of getting a contract wasn't likely.

I happened to check my email round about noon and saw I had a "contract update" from the powers that be, changing that Level Three to a Level One, meaning I most certainly have a class.

Semester starts today. Guess who isn't prepared, nor as of yet doesn't even has a class in Canvas to prepare?

And I already have students asking if I can add them to the class.

The inmates are running the asylum.

I have put in a call to Online Scheduling to find out what the poop is.

Further updates will arrive as events warrant.

UPDATE 1: I have been able to email my students to let them know I am aware I have a class but that I can't access it yet. They may not be able to access it yet either, so we're likely in the same boat. Any deadlines for this week will be shifted accordingly.

UPDATE 2: My wife, on learning the news, says with the extra cash I can buy the new desktop computer I've been thinking about. The one I have is Windowsn 10 and can't be updated to Windows 11, and Windows 10 support ends in a few months.

UPDATE 3: I'm in. Class count has continued to increase, from 16 to 22. The cap is 25, which I expect I may have reached since I checked last night.

UPDATE 4: Yup. Hit the cap.

There Are No Spiritual Shortcuts or Quick Fixes

Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve delivered a significant speech on the benefits and dangers of modern technology, including artificial intelligence, as a devotional for young adults given November 3 of this year.

A lot of my fellow online English instructors hastened to deliver its message to their students, a good thing as we deal with a trickle-to-deluge of AI-written garbage showing up in our classes.

I plan on sharing it with my students as well, but fear it won't reach those who are tinkering with the technology and "getting away with it."

Those who are leery of AI will read the message and appreicate it.

Those who are on the fence with AI will read the message and hopefully avoid the easy pitfalls AI offers.

Those who are already using AI will read the message and maybe think twice, but I suspect for most of them the intent won't reach the core.

I confess to being a lazy person. But I look at AI and think, no, that's not the solution. The solution, as Elder Bednar reiterates several times in his speech, is work, and while I'm not necessarily a fan, I recognize that's the way to go.

The full text of his speech is here.

The text of the church's guidelines on AI use, which he references, is here.

I very much appreciate Elder Bednar's message. The crux of it is here, where he cautions those using AI to not let it deprive them of their moral agency:

As you strive to learn the gospel of Jesus Christ and perform the work you have to do, I specifically exhort you to be wise in your use of contemporary technological tools. Innovations such as artificial intelligence [can] both (1) assist you in receiving magnificent blessings and (2) diminish and suffocate your moral agency. Please do not allow the supposed accuracy, speed, and ease of modern technologies to entice you to avoid or circumvent the righteous work that invites into your life the blessings you will need. My beloved brothers and sisters, there are no spiritual shortcuts or quick fixes.

He goes on to say this:

Now beware. The ease of use, perceived accuracy, and rapid response time that characterize artificial intelligence can create a potentially beguiling, addictive, and suffocating influence on the exercise of our moral agency. Because AI is cloaked in the credibility and promises of scientific progress, we might naively be seduced into surrendering our precious moral agency to a technology that can only think telestial. By so doing, we may gradually be transformed from agents who can act into objects that are only acted upon. And we may unwittingly help Lucifer to achieve in mortality what he was unable to accomplish in premortality.

Truth is knowledge of things as they really are. Artificial intelligence cannot simulate, imitate, or replace the influence of the Holy Ghost in our lives. No matter how sophisticated and elegant AI technology ultimately may become, it simply can never bear witness of the Father and the Son, reveal the truth of all things, or sanctify those who have repented and been baptized.

I remind myself that all things have a spiritual component, including what we use our brains for and the things we submit as our own in even secular settings such as school and work.

He does not dismiss AI as useless, and even suggests we should not hide from it. There are legitimate uses, but the caution is in letting something else do all the work for us. That takes away our agency, he says, and turns us into things that are acted upon, not something that acts. We should use the talents God has given us. We should develop those talents through righteous work, not through easy shortcuts.

The Tells of AI Writing

Universities are working at the speed of, uh, universities, to help teachers counter students submitting work completed by artificial intelligence.

Students, of course -- at least those looking for shortcuts -- are on AI's bleeding edge, using all sorts of AI tricks to make their "work" easier.

But here's the thing: Detecting artificial intelligence writing is pretty easy, even without AI detectors.

I'm not going to reveal my secrets here. First because there are likely developers on the bleeding edge of AI who are already aware of AI's weaknesses, but also because in case they're not, I don't want to aid and abet. But AI writing is obvious on its face, and is mediocre writing at best.

Part of me wants to continue calling out students who use artificial intelligence to write their essays.

A growing part of me, however, is leaning toward just grading the AI writing and giving students the grades they've earned with their "writing."

Not necessarily Fs, of course, because AI isn't that bad. But it's not churning out A level work. Or even B level work. And in many cases, barely C level work. So use AI in my classes, and you're going to get the grade you deserve, whether I "detect" your use of artificial intelligence or not.

Agreed, that's not what I'm supposed to do. I'm supposed to fail those students, report them to the university and all. But I'm not sure that works to deter the behavior, even if they get expelled from the university. But getting mediocre grades for AI writing -- and consistently mediocre grades, time after time -- might make them think about how good AI is.

And maybe I'm fooling myself. Could be. But it's more entertaining that way.

I Need A New Side Gig

I'd rather not have to have a side gig, to be honest.

But because I like to spend the money that comes from it, and it's difficult to make ends meet without it, I do maintain that gig. I teach. Online. Online English. With all the wrestling of ChatGPT and the like that implies.

As tired as I am of wrestling with artificial intelligence, I'm even more tired of other aspects of the course, some new (like having to meet with the students "in person" at the start of each semester) and some old (like a really crappy peer review process introduced last semester).

Class starts again next Monday. I've enjoyed a seven-week break between semesters, though our budget hasn't. So getting the money is good. So I've got to talk myself into remembering the classes have good things about them as well, like most of the students.

But I'd love a new side gig that didn't involve AI or conferences. I just don't know what that is. I'll have to keep looking.

AI is Here to Stay, Unfortunately

I think what's clear about the use of AI in the classroom is this: It's here, and it doesn't look like we can do much about it.

I say this not with a defeatist attitude, but with the bent of thinking, "We can use this to our advantage."

I think we need an assignment where we challenge students to use AI as a writing tool, but with a few caveats:

1. They have to tell us what AI tools they're using and, importantly, why they're using it.

2. They have to cross-check what AI is writing with more, ahem, traditional methods (their own research and their own writing).

3. They have to be held responsible when their cross-checking allows something erroneous to slip through.

I've been doing some extracurricular reading on AI use in the classroom, and a lot of it comes back to the fundamentals of teaching: Students don't learn from the curriculum, they learn from instructors who care. We're showing we care about the quality of work by banning the use of AI -- but clearly, based on the discussions in this group, that's not reaching all students.

We need to find out why our students are using AI, and see if there are tools and methods we can use to fill in the reasons for AI use. I think we need to drop the accusatory tones and recalibrate -- catching them and calling them out doesn't seem to be working.

Of particular interest: Stanford University researchers think they've detected bias against non-native English speakers in AI detectors. The detectors found that in their sampling, more than half of essays written by non-native speakers were incorrectly flagged as being AI-generated, while a control group of native speakers showed less bias.

Researchers recommend teachers get to know their students' writing style and ability early on so they can recognize it. That works unless they start off using AI to write.

So I don't know what to do or think, other than just blow the whole thing up.

Kronk's Plot Hole, and Avoiding Your Own

 One of my favorite Disney movies is "The Emperor's New Groove" from 2000.

At one point, we see the bad guys -- Yzma and Kronk -- chasing the good guys -- Pacha and the Emperor Kuzxo -- through the jungle as both parties are trying to get back to the palace. Part of their journey is illustrated with maps, showing each party's relative location. At one point in their journey, Yzma and Kronk are struck by lightning as they're paragliding over an abyss, and plummet into a canyon.

Despite this setback, they're able to get back to the palace to find the cure for the Emperor being turned into a llama before Pacha and the emperor arrive.

"It can't be," the emperor exclaims. "How did you get back here before we did?"

"Ah. Um, how did we, Kronk?" Ysma asks.

"Well, ya got me," Kronk says, as he pulls down a map of their route. "By all accounts, it doesn't make sense."

They literally fell into a hole in the plot, and can't explain it themselves.

While this is done for comic effect in this film, I'm sure you've read stories or seen movies that had plot holes in them that the story doesn't explain, leaving you as the reader or watcher guessing.

It's up to us, as writers, to avoid doing the same thing to our readers, unless we want to do it deliberately. An unintentional plot hole, even in a change essay, can leave our readers confused. We don't want confused readers.

HOW TO RECOGNIZE A PLOT HOLE. The best way to recognize a plot hole is to have someone else read what you've written. As writers, we tend to be like Yzma and Kronk: We're too close to what we've written to see what we might have left out. Writers are funny. We have all this stuff in our heads, and when we commit to writing it out, we think everything that's in our head has made it onto the page to tell the story.

But we create plot holes ourselves. A while back, I wrote a story about Moki, who'd been with the family for years. She got old and ended up having to be put to sleep because of a back injury. I left out one important detail in the first draft of the story: Moki is a daschund. A friend who read the story first wanted to know who Moki was, and then how we wrestled with the ethics of human euthanization. Once I clarified Moki was indeed a dog, the story became much more understandable.

HOW TO FIX A PLOT HOLE. Have someone else read what you've written. And if you're the one doing the reading for someone else, be honest. Offer praise -- because we all write things that are praiseworthy -- but also ask questions. Offer constructive criticism. Help the writer see what they've done well, and where they could improve.

If you don't have someone else to read what you've written, the best thing is to put your writing aside for 24-48 hours, and come back to it with fresh, more critical eyes. If you have to, print out what you've written and edit on paper. I find I notice more things if I'm working with a physical page, rather than a document on a computer.

If a peer reviewer says you need more information, listen. Try to see your story from their point of view. And it might be that you don't have to add a lot -- just a clarification, like my mentioning to the readers that Moki was a dog.

The best feedback, as this comic illustrates, has three components:

1. Be positive. Don't go in, red pen blazing, criticizing everything in sight. Offer praise. Point out mistakes. Be firm, but be gentle.

2. Be specific. Don't say things like "I don't understand," or "I really like this." Be specific. Say things like "I don't understand your relationship with Moki. Can you clarify?" or "your description of the acupuncture treatments really had me feeling the needles going ino my own skin." The more specific we are with criticism and praise, the better our feedback will be.

3. Offer a next step. The "can you clarify?" from the previous item is a next step. I don't know who Moki is, can you explain who she is to me? Often, we leave something out because we ourselves don't know what the next step should be. Offering a suggestion will help get the writer's brain firing.

Let's Chat About ChatGPT, Part 2

You may recall an announcement I posted exactly one month ago about ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence writing engine that's been making waves in all sorts of circles, particularly in academia.

My wife and I have had some discussions about ChatGPT in the last month, and I've spent some time playing around with it. I have come to this conclusion: ChatGPT is definitely a tool writers should add to their kit of tools, but, like a hammer, it's not a tool that should be overused.

Here's how I see ChatGPT as being useful to you as we move forward through the rest of the semester.

You've settled on your topic for our last paper. Maybe you're going to write about a problem that you think needs to be solved. Or you're going to present to us an item you want to purchase, but you're not sure which model or from which company you want to buy it, so you're going to explore the pros and cons of a handful of models.

Let's get more specific: Let's say I want to write a paper on a problem I have right now: How to store all the books my wife and I have accumulated over the years. This is a big problem in our house, as you can see:

How can I solve the problem of too many books, not enough shelves?

Let's ask ChatGPT:

As you can see, I asked ChatGPT the following question: "I have a lot of books at home, more books than I can fit on my shelves. What's the best way to store books?"

ChatGPT's response:

"There are several ways to store books when you have more books than shelf space:

1 .Consider using bookcases with adjustable shelves. This can allow you to make more space for larger books or other items, while still accommodating smaller books on the same shelves.

2 .Invest in vertical storage solutions such as bookends or bookshelves that utilize vertical space. You can use these to store books on top of your current bookcases or on other surfaces like tables and desks.

3. Use stackable storage boxes. You can purchase storage boxes that are specifically designed for books or use any sturdy box that is large enough to accommodate your books. Label each box with the contents, so you can easily find what you need when you want to read a specific book.

4. Consider downsizing your collection. If you have books that you haven't read in a long time or don't plan to read again, consider donating them to a library or a charity.

5. Store books in other areas of your home, such as under the bed, in closets, or in unused storage space.

6. Store books in a climate-controlled environment to protect them from humidity, which can damage pages and bindings over time.

Remember to handle your books with care to protect them from damage. Store them upright to keep their spines straight, and avoid stacking books too high, as this can cause them to become damaged or warped."

In less then a minute, ChatGPT has offered me six solutions to my problem, along with a bit of advice on storing books in a way to prevent them from being damaged.

So here's ChatGPT helping me out. I only need three solutions for the paper I'm writing, so now I get to pick which ones to look at.

Or let's say I need to pick out a 3-D printer. (A friend of my wife has bought her first 3-D printer, so it's only a matter of time before my wife, who loves this kind of creativity, decides she wants one of her own, so I'd better get on top of it.)

So, let's take the question to ChatGPT:

My question: What's the best 3-D printer to buy?

ChatGPT's response:

The best 3D printer to buy depends on your specific needs and budget. Here are some factors to consider when choosing a 3D printer:

Price: 3D printers can range in price from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. Determine your budget and look for models within that range.

Print Quality: Look for a printer with high print resolution and accuracy. This will ensure that your prints come out looking detailed and precise.

Print Volume: Consider the size of the objects you plan to print. Choose a printer with a large enough print volume to accommodate your needs.

Ease of Use: Look for a printer with user-friendly software and intuitive controls. This will make it easier for you to start printing right away.

Reliability: Look for a printer with good reviews and a proven track record of reliability. A reliable printer will require less maintenance and have fewer issues over time.

Based on these factors, some popular 3D printers include:

Prusa i3 MK3S+: This printer has a reputation for high print quality and accuracy, and it offers a large print volume.

Creality Ender 3: This is an affordable option that offers good print quality and a large community of users for support.

Ultimaker S5: This printer is a more expensive option but offers high-quality prints and a large build volume.

Formlabs Form 3: This is a resin-based printer that offers high accuracy and detail, but it is more expensive than most FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling) printers.

Ultimately, the best 3D printer for you will depend on your specific needs and budget, as well as your skill level and experience with 3D printing. It's a good idea to read reviews and do some research before making a purchase to ensure that you choose a printer that will meet your needs and expectations.

Here are some questions to ponder:

Q: By using ChatGPT, have I cheated?

A: No. No more than if I had used any ordinary web browser to do my searches.

Q: Should I take what ChatGPT says at face value? In other words, can ChatGPT be trusted to give accurate answers?

A: Also no. As with any ordinary search in a web browser, it's up to me, the questioner, to do additional research and to find out, for example, what exactly "vertical storage solutions" are when it comes to taming our book collection, or whether any of the 3-D printers ChatGPT recommended is in my budget range. Or even if my wife is all that interested to get a 3-D printer in the first place.

What I'm saying is this: As you begin working on your next paper, don't discount using ChatGPT to help you explore solutions, or pros or cons. Its just like plugging your questions into a web browser.

Where would use of ChatGPT cross the line into cheating? In my mind, if you take what ChatGPT produces and turn it in as your own work, that's cheating. Will I detect it? Maybe. Or maybe not. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide how much effort you want to put into your work. But I see nothing wrong with using ChatGPT and similar AI engines as a springboard to help you with your thinking.

I'd be interested to see what you think.

Conclusion: Inconclusive

I finally had a few minutes to play around with Edward Tian’s AI-written text detector (explained here). The results leave me satisfied that, under the right conditions, AI-written text can be detected.

But I received enough errors from the analyzer to surmise Tian and those like him have a bit to go before the detection is reliable enough to be useful.

I tried Tian’s detector with five different bits of text:

1. Text generated by AI, which I copied and pasted into a Word document (seen here) and rearranged slightly to make a coherent essay (by rearranged, I mean I re-ordered the paragraphs. I did not alter the text at all).

2. A smaller portion of the same AI-generated text.

3. A portion of an essay I wrote a few years ago on the same subject I tasked the AI to write about.

4. An excerpt from a short story I wrote earlier this week

5. An excerpt from an essay submitted by one of my English students last semester.

Here are the results:

1. Tian’s GPTZero returned a cryptic error (see sample below).

2. Successfully identified the text as AI-generated.

3. Successfully identified the text as human-generated.

4. Successfully identified the text as human-generated.

5. Returned a cryptic error, similar to the sample already mentioned.

I suspect one source of the errors could be metadata carried over by the copy/paste from Microsoft Word, though I did get the errors when I pasted normally and when I pasted with the plain text option.

I’d like to keep conducting experiments with this website, using text I’m unfamiliar with, and certainly using text I’m unsure is AI-generated or not. I’ll keep playing with this, and see if the error rate goes down, or if I can figure out what is causing the errors. On the surface of it, I can see less-cryptic errors would be beneficial.

And with only two tests to differentiate between human and AI, there are likely ways those who want to cheat using AI can game the detector. Of the two, “perplexity,” as explained in the linked article, is a bit cryptic; I’m not exactly sure what AI finds perplexing. And “burstiness,” or variation of sentences in complexity and length, seems easy to game, though you have to suspect it might have to be humans gaming rather than AI, at least for the time being. 

While I’m interested to see where this technology goes (both in AI-generated text and in AI-text-detection, I’m more interested in the general reaction I’m seeing locally from English teachers. The consensus seems to be that we’ll eventually be able to detect it on a consistent basis, and that nothing we’re doing in our courses should change to counter AI text development.

While cheating cheaters will always cheat, I’ve seen from experience that students get more out of writing assignments they’re invested in, rather than just another run-of-the-mill ivory tower essay. But that’s just me using new technological developments to drag out the same ol’ soapbox, so maybe take what I say with a grain of salt.

Ancillary Activities Recommencing. Also, Work.

I don't actually mind that after eleven days off, I'm headed back to work tomorrow. "Heading back to work" involves shifting from one computer to another in the basement, so the "going" part isn't all that bad.

What's mildly frustrating is that this week, all the ancillary activities pick up as well: Young Men meetings on Tuesday night. Venture crew on Thursday, along with a committee meeting. And my second job, teaching at BYU-Idaho, also starts up again on Wednesday.

These are all good and necessary activities; it's just been nice to have a break from them for two weeks.

Pity the Students of English. Especially if They Have Me as Their Instructor.

In English class, you should be learning proper usage and grammar.

I say *should* because, in the case of the Change Essay, we're kind of teaching you that run-on sentences are acceptable.

I mean, look at the template we offer you:

At first, ________________, but then after _________ I thought ______________ and now ____________.

I mean, that's *begging* for a long sentence that will in some cases cause you to pass out because you've run out of oxygen before you get to the end of it.

While this is a good way to help you see the structure of the essay, it's not necessarily the best way to write your thesis statement. So I'd suggest breaking it up into smaller, easier-to-say-in-one-breath sentences, kind of like this:

At first, I thought we were supposed to learn proper English in this class. But after I saw the Change Essay template, I wondered what kind of other terrible examples of English I might see in this class. But now, after reading Brother Davidson's "Doing You A Slight Disservice" announcement, I see the template is only an example, not the law.

If you end up with a really long run-on sentence in your essay, I may point it out, but I'm not going to penalize you for it. Yet.

One other thing to consider: You may have been taught that it's completely improper to use the word "I" in an essay. This is not that kind of essay. This is a personal essay, coming from your perspective, so it's perfectly fine to say things like "This is what I experienced," or "This is what I think." The only cardinal sin (and this will sound funny since I just used this phraseology) is overuse of the word "you." You're writing your experience, not mine, so be careful writing things like . . . and now I can't even think of an example. Just be wary. I mean, use it when it's right, but not when it's wrong.

The *proper* use of you:

Maybe I can use this cartoon to explain. In this case, the "yous" are justified because it is in fact the boss who needs to address his behavior here. But generally speaking if we read an essay that's full of "you need to do this" or "you need to do that" we get all tensed up and we stop listening. And this is still a really bad example because in Conference talks we hear a lot of such talk, and we generally agree, "Yup, I need to do better." So it's really confusing. Maybe I shouldn't even have brought it up.

What kind of advice is that, you may ask? (Hey! He's doing it again!) That's just . . . English. It's a weird language that is often more exception than rule. It's meant to be played with, and for the most part this class is a safe place for play. I'll try, if I see play going beyond bounds, to explain why, but if I struggle with an explanation, it's because English is just so English.

ADDENDUM: I'm eavesdropping on my wife, who teaches English at BYUI and the College of Eastern Idaho, and she has this to say about "you" at least in this particular essay (and I'm paraphrasing): This is your essay, it's personal. It's you telling the story. So I should not read "this is what you should feel," or "this is what you should think" and the like. This is you telling the story. Use I.

Clear, right?

Not Helping, Turnitin

 

So, what's more important? Confirming plagiarism or protecting privacy?

Turnitin, the goofball service my university employs to detect plagiarism, is erring on the side of privacy.

Problem is, I don't exactly trust Turnitin to get things right. They might flag something as plagiarized, but it's up to the wet robots -- us instructors -- to look at what they've flagged to make that judgment call.

With the veil of privacy pulled down, I can't do that verification. Without the verification, I can't say for sure my student plagiarized.

They do offer the option of contacting the university through their service to see if I can get access to the paper Turnitin flagged, but I have no idea how long that'll take, particularly with a foreign university.

I don't suspect this student is plagiarizing. What I'm seeing is about 98% inadvertent. I just don't see the point of working with a service that can't necessarily provide the goods.

Epidei-whutsit?

If you want to read the Internet stumbling over the definition of a word, look no further.

A student used this word in an essay I'm grading tonight. He found a definition that pretty much reads like the stereo instructions you'll get in this Wikipedia article, but befuddled his ol' instructor, who needs it in layman's terms.

I can see why he's struggling, though. No one on the 'net is able to define it plainly.*

I'm telling him if he can't define the term, he'd better not use it.

But wanting closure, I wanted to find a definition that made sense to me.

I kept poking the Internet. And came up empty. So I posted the question to my Facebook friend, and one delivered, with this.

The word: Epideictic. The definition that made sense, finally: a ceremonial verbal display, often with the purpose of dispensing blame or praise. I think my student used it correctly, but he was struggling mightily to define it. And when you use a two-dollar word in a 100-level English class, you'd better be able to define it. And you can't use a definition with more two-dollar words, which is what this student was trying to do.

*Sure, the Wikipedia article and definition it offers makes more sense now, but read on to see how that came to pass.

Truth Demands Vigilance. And Life is A Highway.

Truth is messy.

Actually, what Alexandr Solzhenitsyn says is “[T]ruth seldom is pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter.”

Solzhenitsyn, a Russian novelist, dissident, and political philosopher most known for “The Gulag Archipelago,” in which he describes the prison system of the former Soviet Union through the experiences of others and his own time spent in the gulags, spoke these words – translated from Russian – in June 1976 as he delivered a graduation address at Harvard University in the United States.

He called the speech “A World Split Apart,” in which he outlines what he perceived as the “truth” of the West, which welcomed him from exile from an oppressive regime that censored and imprisoned him, but also a West in which he sees increasing weakness and loss of resolve as it faces the unpleasant, bitter truths he believes to be increasingly coming to light. He cautioned his listeners that “[T]ruth eludes us if we do not concentrate our attention totally on its pursuit. But even while it eludes us, the illusion of knowing it still lingers and leads to many misunderstandings.” In other words, even those who think they know the truth had better constantly check themselves, lest their grasp on truth loosen without them realizing.

The aim of his speech was to caution those in the West to avoid not only resting on the laurels of openness and freedom but also to recognize, as Thomas Jefferson once said, that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” 

He went on to provide what he regarded as evidence that the West has failings that could lead to places as unpleasant as he experienced in the East, cautioning his listeners that the need to reassess and occasionally recalibrate their grasp on truth is essential to preserving their way of life.

This may sound familiar: The prophet Nephi, as recorded in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 28:24-25), offered this warning: “Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well.” God, through Nephi, warned his people about the dangers of complacency – which often led to pride, the pursuit of riches over helping others, and eventual downfall. Solzhenitsyn echoes this religious allusion by reminding his Harvard listeners “This deep manifold split bears the danger of manifold disaster for all of us, in accordance with the ancient truth that a kingdom – in this case, our Earth – divided against itself cannot stand.”

Solzhenitsyn outlines a series of general and specific malaises he saw in Western society. While it’s difficult to know what specific events might have triggered his thoughts, it’s important to recognize that the 1970s were a period of increased societal and political turmoil in the West and in the United States, where he spoke these words.

The nation had ended the Vietnam War in defeat. Richard Nixon, a towering political figure in the early 1970s, had resigned the presidency in late 1974 in the aftermath of Watergate, leaving significant distrust of government in his wake. Terrorism, civil rights marches, hostage-takings, military coups, and other events rattled the free world.

And the free world, Solzhenitsyn believed, was increasingly paralyzed in knowing how to react.

 “The Western world has lost its civil courage,” he said, “both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. . . Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity, and perplexity in their actions and in their statements, and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable, as well as intellectually and even morally worn it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice.”

Solzhenitsyn also saw increasing weakness in Western society in general. “[T]he constant desire to have still more things,” he said, “and a still better life and the struggle to attain them imprint many Western faces with worry and depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition fills all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development.”

This lack of civil courage and the turning in of governments and individuals, he cautioned, was leading to increased proclivity to protecting a sentiment of “what’s mine is mine, and I don’t care if you have what you need.”

He said: “The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It’s time in the West – it is time in the West to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.”

That is the most famous line from his speech: “It’s time in the West – It is time in the West to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.” Rights and obligations often intertwine, but in a society in which he warned against passive and cowardly politicians, clever interpreters of the law, and increased worldliness and selfishness among the general population, the right to do what one individual seems fit can often trump and trample the obligations human beings owe their fellow man.

This we have heard before: Amulek and Alma fought against those who used their education in law to eventually put the followers of God to death: (Alma 10, 15, 17) “Now these lawyers were learned in all the arts and cunning of the people; and this was to enable them that they might be skillful in their profession. Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God.”

Solzhenitsyn urged those listening to him at Harvard to consider a truth: “On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. IN the West, commercial interests suffocate it. This is the real crisis: The split in the world is less terrible – the split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.”

In other words, both East and West have lost, or are losing their way when it comes to respecting human obligations over human rights.

Listen for the Music and Fill Your Head

Consider the following problem:

My full-time job is at a federal laboratory where waste left over from nuclear weapons production is repackaged for storage. This waste presents many hazards, one of the least being sometimes, when left in the “right” conditions, some of this waste can spontaneously burst into flame. As you can imagine, burning nuclear waste isn’t the best thing do to do keep other hazards – notably, radiation – in check. Part of my job is to assist in writing and revising procedures that must be followed carefully in order to keep this waste from burning.

While I can’t go into the practicalities here, rest assured writing these procedures is an iterative process, in which methods have to be tried and tried again, based on the best evidence presented from operators, chemists, radiation protection technicians, and others to ensure the process recorded in the written documentation is the best way to prevent accidents.

This means the procedures are in a constant state of being written and re-written. Not because accidents are frequent, but because each type of waste demands its own special treatment. Writing and re-writing and writing it all over again is just part of the process.

That goes for a lot of aspects of life.

Iteration. Revision. If at first you fail, try, try again.

“Suppose a company wants to make a product that will perhaps make a real difference,” writes Donald A. Norman, director of the Design Lab at the University of California San Diego, in his book “The Design of Everyday Things.” “The problem,” he continues, “is that if the product is truly revolutionary, it is unlikely that anyone will quite know how to design it right the first time; it will take several tries. But if a product is introduced into the marketplace and fails, well that is it. Perhaps it could be introduced a second time, or maybe even a third time, but after that it is dead: everyone believes it to be a failure.

In a conversation with a product designer, Norman asked “You mean that it takes five or six tries to get an idea right?”

“Yes,” he said. “At least that.”

“But,” I replied, you also said that if a newly introduced product doesn’t’ catch on in the first two or three times, then it is dead?”

“Yup,” he said.

“Then new products are almost guaranteed to fail, no matter how good the idea.”

“Now you understand,” said the designer. “Consider the use of voice messages on complex devices such as a camera, soft-drink machines, and copiers. A failure. No longer even tried. Too bad. It really is a good idea, for it can be very useful when the hands or eyes are busy elsewhere. But those first few attempts were very badly done and the public scoffed – properly Now, nobody dares try it again, even in those places where it is badly needed.”

This book was published in 1988. That’s thirty-three years ago.

Think about our world filled with voice-activated devices. Devices that hear us and understand us and can deliver what we want. We can make phone calls using only our voice. Ask for music. Request a movie or television show. Or the news or the weather. Or even drive a car. Using only our voices.

Those designers’ work, back in the late Eighties, wasn’t in vain. It just took a lot more trying.

What I’m getting at is this: Maybe you’re not satisfied with your skill as a writer now. Maybe you look at what you have written and think it’s awful. I know I do.

The only way I know how to improve writing is to keep writing. And to read, watch TV, or whatever it takes to get ideas in your head. The more you write and the more you think, the better you’ll do. And you won’t see improvement all at once.

Let me put it another way:

Let me liken what this video says to writing. The narrator says the following: “The dance steps require discipline but the joy of the dance will only be experienced when we come to hear the music. Sometimes in our homes we successfully teach the dance steps, but are not as successful at helping our family members to hear the music.”

I hope you’ve learned some things about writing in this class. Maybe some of the steps. But I know for most of you, this is just part of your journey into hearing the music of writing. I hope you have heard it, or that someday you may hear it. It is beautiful to hear.

Keep practicing the dance. And when you hear the music, let it fill your spriit.

And while you’re waiting to hear the music, or if it’s only coming faintly, fill your head.

Listen again: "When you talk to Chuck, he is always encouraging you to go to the source, to study real life, to study art, and apply that to your animation. It's not just drawing funny faces."

And to Mr. Jones himself: "Reading. Read everything. It doesn't do you much good to draw unless you have something to draw. And the only place you're going to get anything to draw is out of that head."

Listen for the music. Let it touch your spirit. And always, always, fill your head.

You Have to Be Careful with Eggs . . .

I aged about a year this morning.

Round about 8 am, I got a call from Human Resources at BYU-Idaho, where I teach online English. The very nice fellow on the other end of the line said a student had sent HR a message, claiming that at the end of a texting conference with him the evening before, I sent him a naughty anime picture, then said "Oops, wrong text."

We quickly figured out that the number the student texted and mine did not match up -- at one point, it was one digit off. I was lucky because:

1. The HR rep was already skeptical about the situation

2. While I recognized the student's name, I knew for a fact I had not conferenced with him by text or any other way the night before

3. The HR rep called the number the student texted and the person on the other end got really cagey and tried to disguise their voice.

I got two calls, in rapid succession, the second saying the matter was closed and that there was no wrongdoing on my part. He said he didn't want me to spend the day worrying over the event.

Nevertheless . . . that was a long ten minutes between phone calls.

Now, I do not blame the student for anything other than not double-checking the phone number he was texting. I was not made privy to the conversation he had with the other number about his paper, but apparently enough inroads were made he felt like he'd had a discussion with me and then was shocked when I texted the naughty picture.

He did what he should have done -- he contacted HR about the situation.

But I'm glad, in this cancel culture we live in, that the matter was resolved quickly and in my favor. It could have swung the other way quickly and ended up a lot uglier than it did.

This evening, I had a text conference with the student. He rightaway apologized if I'd had a scare, and I told him -- honestly -- it wasn't that big of a deal. We went on to conference about his paper -- for which I gave him the title, hoping he'd take that as a sign that I knew what his paper was, even if the other person he'd texted with the night before didn't, but was vague enough about things -- or said, remind me -- that they were able to bluff their way through.

Lesson learned?

Get that number right when you text.

And if you get a wrong number text, remember any jokes you play, thinking you're having a lot of fun, might very well have real-world consequences.

And act stunned enough when HR calls that they realize you don't have the brains to successfully pick your nose, let alone send someone a naughty anime picture.

One final lesson: Don't reveal the number the student texted so they get spammed with all sorts of crud. But really, really consider it.

Leave A Trail

So for the past week, and for the next week, I'm substituting in another online English class for BYUI. Same class I'm teaching now. You'd think that's easy, but it's not.

Here's why.

The class is designed in a way to make teaching the Argumentative Synthesis Essay a flexible teaching moment. They provide loose guidelines, but leave it up to individual teachers to custom-tailor the essay, done in three parts. And I know from personal experience in talking with other English teachers that not many of us teach the course in the same way.

So going into this, grading outlines and such for Part Two, I had no frame of reference for how their permanent teacher, due back in a week, is teaching the essay.

Now me, if someone came into my class as a substitute and read my announcements, they'd know right away how I teach the course. Not so with this teacher. So I had to dig deeper into things like her comments on their topics and on the Part One papers. So I think I have a grasp on what her expectations are, but I had to leave them an announcement today cautioning them that since I'm not the same teacher who started their section, my understanding may not match their teacher's expectations. So I laid out in the announcement where I intended to go. So that way, when their regular teacher comes back they can at least see the method to my madness. I hope that works, because it's what I'm sticking with.

This leads me to thinking about the error precursors we get hammered on at work. We can think we have a flawless plan, but as errors start to compound, they can compound in a way that makes incidents more likely. I'm hoping I've got my bases covered. Not for me, but for the students, because they don't deserve to have to do things over and over and over again to please different instructors.

Trying not to Fossilize, or Avoiding Elf Stasis

Zoom is what did it.

Zoom, of course, is the online collaboration platform, where one can have video presentations, chats, and other meetings and such with widely-dispersed groups. We use Zoom at BYU-Idaho in our teaching groups, where we may have teachers from across the nation working together to become better teachers in a teacherly way.

But this semester – it took me five weeks to find my way into the group chat. Because things had changed.

Or maybe not changed. I haven’t used Zoom much, and when we have meetings, I get a link to them. To go into the program – annoying called apps these days – was something I hadn’t done in a long time. So it took some time to remember how to get there. And how to log in. And what my password was. And to realize I didn’t need my password if I used a push notification which, thankfully, I have used more often and remembered how to do.

So there I was, stumbling into the chat four weeks after the fact, like an Elf finally giving up on Middle-Earth and heading to the Grey Havens to sail to the Undying Lands.

Elves, we have to remember form Tolkien’s universe, love stasis.* Their world was perfect, so why change that? But due to the meddling and weaknesses of men – and the scheming of those who destroyed Numenor and brought their evil to Middle-Earth – their existence was threatened and their stability shattered. Though they hadn’t given into the corruption of the One Ring, it hung heavily over their heads, viz:



So when stasis could not be maintained in Middle-Earth, they departed for Valinor, where their stasis could be maintained.

I’m evolving into a technological elf. I want things to remain the same. I’m tired, for example, of our teaching groups changing each semester, having to find the new place in the community, It’s awful.

But I need to be adaptable. Things will change and continue to change, and those who refuse to change are doomed to wander, lustrous and beautiful, in a world that no longer suits them.

*Warning: Major Nerd Alert