I'm a middle school English teacher, and last year we saw a significant increase in students using artificial intelligence to cheat on writing assignments. Our department believes that the only way 13-year-olds can become better writers is by practicing and learning from the successes and challenges that come with it.
Recently, our department gave students an argumentative writing assignment. We supported the assignment by breaking it down into multiple steps. Completing the assignment took several days of class time and homework. All students signed a contract agreeing not to use AI assistance, and parents promised to uphold the agreement by monitoring their children studying at home. Yet many students used AI.
Some of the staff uploaded marking rubrics to the AI-assisted platform, and students uploaded their essays for assessment. The program certainly has some strengths; most notably, it gives students feedback on their writing and gives them the opportunity to edit their work before final submission. Papers are graded within minutes, and teachers can transcribe the AI grades into their attendance register.
I feel this is hypocritical. I spend a lot of time grading my students' essays. It's tedious work, but I feel it's my responsibility. If my students are making an effort to complete their assignments, I should be giving them my full attention during the grading process.
This is where I wrestle: should I embrace new technology and use AI-assisted grading to save my time and my sanity, even though I forbid my students from using it? Is it unethical for teachers to ask students not to use AI for their writing, but have an AI platform grade it for them? – Anonymous
From an Ethicist:
It's reasonable to discourage students from using AI to draft their essays. Like many other skills, writing well and thinking clearly improves with practice. In contrast, you already know how to grade papers; no practice required.
The question is whether an AI-assisted platform can reliably assess and diagnose student writing, and provide the explanations and guidance students need to improve. In theory, such tools (and there are several on the market, including from major educational publishers) offer certain advantages: the promise of grading without the consistency, fatigue, and expectations that undoubtedly affect those of us who manually grade student work.
You don't seem concerned about whether the platform offers reliable assessments, but you have to decide if it does. (Even if it's not up to par, it might be in a year or two, so your question will continue.) However, if the platform does a decent assessment, I don't see why you should do it all yourself. You should review the AI-annotated versions of your students' writings, see if you agree with the output, and make note of problematic points to bring up in class. But the time saved on grading papers might be better spent on other things. And by “better” I mean better for your students. After all, there is a teaching function that only you can perform.
In summary, it is not hypocritical to use AI in ways that benefit students while strongly advocating that it not be used in ways that disadvantage them.
Readers' reactions
The last question came from a reader who asked about professional boundaries. He wrote, “I am a retired married male psychiatrist. A divorced woman who was once my patient recently contacted me 45 years after our treatment ended. Would it be OK for me to correspond with her by email? Or is this a case of 'once a patient, always a patient'?”
In their response, the ethicist noted that “relevant professional associations tend to have regulations in place specifically regarding sexual relations with former patients. … Given the potential for exploitation in therapist-patient relationships, these rules are intended to maintain clear boundaries, protect the welfare of patients, maintain the integrity of the profession, and eliminate any grey areas that may lead to ethical violations. However, you mention her marital status and your own, but you are only asking about emailing her – building a friendly relationship. The question for you is whether she will be harmed by this, whether the knowledge and trust gained from your professional relationship will cloud the personal relationship. Indeed, it has been almost half a century since your professional relationship, but you still need to be confident that your interactions with her clear this hurdle. If they do, you can email without compunction.”Read the full questions and answers again here.)
⬥
As always, I I agree with the ethicist. I would add that the letter writer's ex-patient is not aware that the therapist is actually two different people: a professional and a layperson. The therapist presents himself/herself as a professional to the client. The ex-client may be disappointed to see the therapist in a non-professional capacity. Furthermore, the feelings he/she has towards the therapist may be based in transference and need to be addressed. — Ann Marie
⬥
I Clinical psychologist. The ethicist is right about the boundaries of professional ethics, but there is more to the story. I disagree with his conclusion. The very big question here is why this former patient is contacting him after 45 years. This is a question that is best explored and answered within the context of the therapeutic relationship. He would be wise to respond in a kind and thoughtful way to convey the clear message that he is not available for continued communication, and should suggest that she see another therapist if she feels that would be helpful. — Margaret
⬥
My situation, It was my therapist who contacted me several years after our sessions ended, attempting to build a friendship. I was surprised, but he told me that he had since experienced a similar personal tragedy that I had discussed with him in our sessions. It had been several years since we had met at work, so I responded. There was no hint of romantic or sexual interest. Still, it didn't seem right to me, as he continued to contact me, clearly hoping for a friendship. What he knew about me, no matter how warm we felt during our sessions, was born out of a relationship that was never personal, but was supposed to be professional, and I felt that it was unprofessional. I was ultimately disappointed that he had sought a friendship with me. — Liam
⬥
I am (semi) retired I am a practicing psychiatrist since 1974. In my opinion, the saying “once a patient, always a patient” is true. Developing any kind of personal relationship with a former patient can undermine any progress the patient may have made in treatment and is clearly a slippery slope to unethical behavior. As psychiatrists, our responsibility is to work with patients to confront and resolve the issues that are preventing them from having a reality-based perception of life. With such a perspective, they can have satisfying relationships with others. An ethical psychiatrist is not in the business of giving patients such satisfaction. — Roger
⬥
I think there is To be Friendly And existence friend This is an email with a former client. As someone who was in counseling with a therapist whom I greatly respected, the therapist made it clear to me that it was OK to send life update emails after the therapeutic relationship ended. Beyond that, however, given the former patient/practitioner relationship and the dynamic that existed between us, I would find it inappropriate and awkward to develop a friendship with her, or vice versa. The letter writer does not share the content of the email the former patient sent, but if it was simply a friendly life update, I think it would be fine to respond and thank her for sharing. Beyond that, it would seem unprofessional to meet up or develop a deeper relationship. — Megan
