A recent issue of The Bagpipe ran an article about and by ChatGPT that posed the question, "Why write again when this tool is available 24/7 and arguably can do a better job than the average student can?" In response, Director of Library Services John Holberg, Dr. Jay Green, Dr. Robert Erle Barham, Dr. John Wingard and Dr. Scott Jones have shared their perspectives on the purpose of writing.
Green, Wingard and Jones all emphasized the role writing plays in thinking. Green commented that he does not feel like he knows what he thinks about a topic until he writes about it. Both he and Jones argued that it is a faulty assumption to think that ideas are fully formed prior to the process of writing. If this were not the case, Green pointed out, writing would be much easier than it is.
Comparing the difficulty of writing a good sentence to that of hitting a fastball, he said, “The reason it’s hard is that it requires a lot of intense intellectual concentration and a command of language.” Without doing this hard work, we lose the ability to understand others and respond to surrounding forces with discernment. Green expressed skepticism towards the possibility of nuanced critical thinking without writing.
In a similar vein, Wingard commented on the blessing of having the opportunity to learn to write. He hopes that by writing his students will develop skill in reasoning and analysis. Wingard argued that writing is central to critical thinking and retention and questioned whether using Artificial Intelligence to write is ultimately desirable.
Jones emphasized the formative effect of writing on the writer, saying that the process has the potential to shape students into people who can handle ideas in a nuanced, charitable way. “They are also responsible to the people who are behind those ideas that they’re engaging with to be charitable to them, to be loving to them, to represent them fairly, and also to criticize them when necessary. So writing is an extension of conversation and personal relationship,” Jones said.
Wingard also noted a relational aspect of writing. Communities share ideas over time through writing, so the practice makes the writer think about clarity. In this way, learning to write clearly enough for a reader to understand teaches the writer to better love his or her neighbor.
Barham described writing as a way to develop and cultivate a voice. Grounding his view in 1 Peter 3:15’s exhortation to be able to gently explain why we have hope, he invites students to learn how to use their diverse perspectives, skills and experiences for the purpose of expression. Barham described the circular process of refinement of thought and writing as “invaluable.”
Contrary to the idea that the process of writing has value in itself, Green commented that the idea of using Artificial Intelligence to write papers “treats writing like it’s mowing the grass. It’s something that has to be done, and if we could find a robot to do it, then I could be spending more time doing something more productive, doing something within the wheelhouse of what I was made to do.” Green said that it would be hard to convince him that writing falls into that category.
Jones similarly recognized that likely, few students understand the value of learning to write while they are doing it. He compared the process to learning how to form letters in kindergarten. While in the middle of all of the minute details, he said, it is hard for students to recognize that they are learning “building blocks” rather than “mere motions.” Similar to the protagonist of “Karate Kid,” many students only realize in retrospect what learning to write has done for them. Jones also noted that it would take this kind of practice and training to even know how to program a bot to get good results. Shortcuts simply don’t work.
Recognizing a theological dimension to the discussion, Holberg commented that, by writing, humans are able to participate in Creation. “It’s also about the unfolding of Creation. We’re involved in making meaning,” he said. Holberg argued that creating and making meaning in this way is uniquely human.
The overall consensus was that writing is not just a checkmark on a to-do list, but a process that forms thinkers. To assign the job to a computer because it would allegedly do it better would entirely miss the point.