By Vinny Porco
Ian Stansel teaches Creative Writing classes from the 200 to 600-level, all without a trace of AI.
He teaches screenwriting, fiction and also general creative writing classes. But whether his class compels students to produce love poems or write for the screen, they can expect at least one firm note of consistency from Stansel. The use of Generative AI in his Creative Writing coursework is forbidden.
The first time Stansel encountered student use of AI was in an online-only section of Introduction to Creative Writing.
“They were usually short writing exercises,” he said. “Write a scene where two characters do X.”
The further use of AI finally compelled Stansel to create a policy. “I think it took a couple of semesters after the advent of ChatGPT until I actually created a policy,” he said. “It took me a while to realize how prevalent it was.”
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) POLICY:
Plagiarism includes the use of AI-generated text without proper citation or credit. In other words, students should never use AI tools to generate any text for class and then attempt to pass off that AI-generated text as their own original work. The use of AI tools for any part of an assignment’s completion is prohibited. Any suspected use of AI will be reported to the English Department and to the College of Arts and Sciences.
Stansel cited his career experience as his greatest tool for gauging authenticity. “I’ve been doing this for 20 years,” he explained. “I sort of understand the usual spectrum of undergraduate writing.”
When he is given something unexpected, he’s either excited about the talent of a young writer or disappointed at a likely AI-generated submission.
He discussed how AI has its own writing tendencies such as repetitive sentence structure or frequent use of two adjectives to a singular noun. He said the software often creates moral-of-the-story endings that are uncalled for.
With this in mind, Stansel believes he has a solid grasp on what to look for, using AI-checking software only occasionally.
Stansel believes awareness and respect for one’s audience can turn the creative writing process into a partnership.
“The writer gives the reader the tools and materials they need to then complete the work within their imagination,” he said.
That partnership can be very personal. “I really believe that readers, viewers and listeners of art…even if they would never think of it this way, I believe what they are doing is communing with the creator or creators of that art,” he said.
As with any partnership, honesty and authenticity are foundational. Stansel says readers trust they are reading the author’s work, not another person’s or AI’s.
He explained how the construction of his classes, developed long before Generative AI, helps bolster this idea of partnership.
The coursework in Stansel’s classes flows through a writing workshop where students are grouped. Students bring refined versions of assignments and leave with constructive feedback.
He told The Cardinal, “I think generally speaking, 95% of the time students come away from group discussion in a workshop that I run feeling fairly good about what they’ve created, and also inspired to create an even better version in the next iteration.”
“I don’t know how that would feel, to have [AI-generated] work discussed as if it was my own,” he said. “I don’t think it would feel very good.”
Looking ahead, Stansel hopes the novelty of AI has worn off. Time will tell if further public understanding and more ironed-out academic policies will limit or bolster its use in higher education.
And while the software is new, Stansel noted that plagiarism certainly is not.
Feature Photo by Vinny Porco / The Louisville Cardinal
About
News
Sports
Features
Opinion
Employment
Contact Us
Advertising
Survival Guide
Donate
Leave a Reply