Should We Use ChatGPT to Make Literature Accessible to Students?

            In this Boston Globe article, MG Prezioso (Harvard University) tees off on teachers who are using AI tools like ChatGPT to simplify texts for students. “As an education researcher, I understand the appeal of AI-adapted texts,” she says. “Classrooms play host to students with a range of language and literacy skills, and AI-adapted materials, which can be translated and tailored to each individual’s reading level, allow students to access the same content – along with supplementary resources, like discussion questions and vocabulary words – at their own pace. This is especially valuable in social studies and the sciences, where information is a prerequisite for conceptual understanding.” But Prezioso has several concerns:

            • Watered-down language – AI-generated text tends to be syntactically repetitive and stylistically flat, she says. Students need to read complex and varied sentences to develop reading comprehension skills. “Why not use authentic texts with additional instructional support, like drawing on background knowledge or helping students break down meaning-filled, ‘juicy’ sentences instead?”

            • Artistic integrity – AI-modified works of fiction, essays, and memoirs can do violence to the original authors’ integrity.

            • Bias – “Can we really trust AI,” asks Prezioso, “with its racial and gender biases, to adapt a novel like Beloved– one that embodies not only Toni Morrison’s lyrical, enchanting style but also the complexities of the black experience?”

            • Love of reading – AI-processed texts simply don’t have the same ability to develop students’ appreciation of authors’ word choice, imagery, and character dialogue. Reading will be a chore, not a joy. “Divorcing a story from its style is like separating humans from atoms,” says Prezioso. “You can try, but if you were to succeed, you would create something entirely different.” There’s already a trend of fewer young people reading for fun, and AI is likely to make things worse.

            As an example, Prezioso takes a passage from the end of The Great Gatsby, a novel often used in high-school English classes:

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter – tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther… And one fine morning – So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Now here’s a ChatGPT rendition:

Gatsby believed in the green light, a symbol of the bright future he dreamed of. Each year, that future seemed to slip further away. It was out of reach then, but that didn’t stop him – tomorrow he would try harder, stretch further… and maybe one day, he would achieve it. So we keep moving forward, like boats trying to move against the current, always being pulled back into the past.

“The original is elegant, complex,” says Prezioso. “Its arrangement of words and syntax, from the expanded clauses to the ellipsis and dashes, embodies Gatsby’s yearning for the past, as well as our own faith in, and pursuit of, illusory dreams. The message is tragic, but its tone is  hopeful, leaving us to wonder: are we foolish for beating on, or is the honor in the attempt?” The AI-generated text, on the other hand, is rigid, mechanical, lacks complexity and tone, and distorts Fitzgerald’s message. 

            What makes the original meaningful is that it is “crafted by a person, a breathing, feeling person,” says Prezioso. “There is wisdom in human-crafted words, and it is hard-earned. We mustn’t overlook this wisdom. It’s why we read. It’s what we’ll lose. And it’s something AI will never provide.” 

 

“Teachers Are Using AI to Make Literature Easier for Students to Read. This Is a Terrible Idea” by MG Prezioso in The Boston Globe, April 13, 2025; Prezioso can be reached at mgprezioso@fas.harvard.edu.

NCTE: The state of literature

Texts Most Frequently Taught in US Secondary Classrooms Are Nearly Identical to List from Decades Ago

NCTE 07.24.25 NCTE NewsNCTE Publications - link

Nationwide survey of 4,000 English teachers funded by the National Council of Teachers of English finds that most secondary school English teachers value teaching diverse texts, but censorship and curricular limits can hinder their use 

Despite efforts to introduce texts offering a variety of points of view into American secondary English literature classrooms, the list of the most taught books remains largely unchanged from 35 years ago. While a majority of the nation’s teachers say teaching diverse texts is a goal, their ability to do so is influenced by factors including autonomy over text selections and censorship. 

These are among the findings from a survey representing more than 4,000 English language arts (ELA) teachers in public high school and middle school classrooms across the country. The findings were released today in a white paper, funded by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), featuring the most detailed insights into what students are taught in secondary English instruction since the 1980s. 

The State of Literature Use in US Secondary English Classrooms is the first study to survey a large population of current US secondary (grades 6–12) ELA public school teachers on their literature use, curricular autonomy, diverse book inclusion, and censorship perspectives.  

William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is the most taught text, according to the survey, followed by F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, and Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. The Crucible is one of just four texts—along with Elie Wiesel’s Night, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein—that were not on the 1989 list of 10 most taught texts. Shakespeare’s Macbeth, listed fourth in the recent survey, was among the top 10 in 1989 as well as in a 1964 survey of literature in American classrooms. 

“This survey is an important addition to previous research on book censorship and curriculum policies. It reflects the voices of teachers and their firsthand experience as professionals who have been prepared to foster student learning,” said NCTE President Tonya B. Perry, a former middle school teacher who serves as provost and vice president of academic affairs at Miles College in Alabama. “It’s encouraging that teachers want to honor students’ right to access outstanding literature that reflects their rich and varied experiences and sparks critical thinking around the complexities of the human experience. These survey results suggest, however, that diverse texts are still on the sidelines of the curriculum.” 

Key Findings: 

• Most Frequently Used Texts: All of the top 10 books found in this study were written by white authors, mostly men, and published more than 60 years ago.

• Freedom in Text Selection: Teacher autonomy in text selection ranged greatly. More than one-third of teachers noted using a scripted curriculum, and one in five had no choice in text selection. Teachers in the South are most likely to have a scripted curriculum.
• Most Commonly Censored Topics: The top reasons for censorship are content that is related to sex (ranging from handholding to actual sex), LGBTQIA+ representation, and topics of race and/or racism in a text. Many titles are censored with no reason given or for vague reasons like age appropriateness, politics, and controversy.

• Most Common Censors: Teachers reported that the four groups most often involved in the chain of censorship are parents, school boards, state legislators, and school districts.
• Diverse Literature Inclusion: When asked about diverse literature, nine in 10 teachers agree that it is important, express interest in using it more, and do use it in their classrooms. Yet a majority of teachers reported that less than half of their curricula includes diverse texts.
• Diverse Literature Topics: Teachers are most interested in teaching literature about people of color and least interested in teaching literature about the LGBTQIA+ community. They are the most comfortable teaching literature that addresses historical events, such as the Holocaust.

The survey was sent to every US public school secondary ELA teacher with a public-facing email address—more than 107,000 in all—between January 2023 and June 2024. The respondents, representing teachers in every state, collectively identified 5,108 unique titles being taught. The study defines “diverse literature” using the nonprofit, We Need Diverse Books’ definition: “We recognize all diverse experiences, including (but not limited to) LGBTQIA+, Native, people of color, gender diversity, people with disabilities, and ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities.” 

“NCTE funded this study to offer educators, policymakers, and the public data-driven insights into how literature is currently used in classrooms and to inform ongoing conversations at local, state, and national levels. In doing so, we reaffirm our commitment to supporting educators’ professional autonomy and informed decision-making,” NCTE Executive Director Emily Kirkpatrick said. “Ultimately, the findings raise important questions about the effects of censorship on students’ engagement with texts that they find interesting, which leads to lifelong reading and learning, as well as the development of critical thinking skills.”  

NY: AI about to rewrite history, literarally

 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/magazine/ai-history-historians-scholarship.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

NYT: Listen to Hamlet, Feel Better

 NYT article: Listen to Hamlet, Feel Better

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/19/opinion/hamlet-shakespeare-self-help.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

NYT The Morning: AI in the classroom

From The Morning in the NY Times

 Summary:

This article explores how tech companies, including Microsoft and OpenAI, are aggressively integrating AI chatbots into K–12 and college classrooms—offering tools for grading, tutoring, and lesson prep, often with little research backing their educational value. While marketed as essential for future-readiness, the widespread use of AI in schools raises concerns about student data privacy, commercialization of education, and whether these tools truly enhance learning.

Danielson Domain:

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation – especially 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction

A.I. in the classroom

By Evan Gorelick

Chatbots have wormed their way into everything: phones, cars, TVs, offices. They’re also in kids’ classrooms.

Microsoft and OpenAI announced yesterday that they would spend millions on a new program that will train teachers to use artificial intelligence. It’s part of a bigger push by tech companies to get their chatbots into schools. They’re selling A.I. subscriptions to administrators and promising them that the bots will help teachers grade assignments, prepare lessons and draft recommendation letters. The companies say A.I. proficiency will prepare kids for the work force.

They also approach students directly with discounted subscription rates around exam periods. It’s an old playbook: Get kids hooked, and you’ve got future customers.

But do chatbots actually help them learn? So far, there’s little evidence. Today, I explain how students have become guinea pigs in a national classroom-learning experiment.

What’s happening?

After years of hesitancy and hand-wringing about A.I., schools are starting to experiment with chatbots — some with enhanced privacy guardrails, some without. In a nationally representative survey, nearly half of districts reported having provided A.I. training for their teachers as of last fall. That’s twice the number from the previous year.

In Kelso, Wash., middle and high schoolers used Google’s Gemini this school year for tasks like research and writing. In Newark, an A.I. tool from Khan Academy helps teachers place elementary-school students into study groups based on their skill levels. It also answers students’ questions as teachers give lessons.

Colleges are buying chatbots, too. The California State University System just signed a $17 million deal with OpenAI to give its 460,000 students access to ChatGPT, despite major state funding cuts. The school wants to equip students with A.I. to debug computer code, make digital art, edit essays and research assignments. Schools like Duke and the University of Maryland are among a growing group that have introduced homegrown chatbots for similar tasks.

Same pitch, new era

Tech companies are using an old marketing strategy: Promise that the latest tech will solve classroom problems. In the early 2000s, they told parents and educators that laptops would revolutionize classroom learning. Districts spent millions.

Two decades later, tech companies are still peddling the same fear of missing out: They suggest students need cutting-edge tools for tomorrow’s economy, and schools that don’t provide them are setting their students up for failure. “‘I don’t want my kids to get left behind.’ That’s the first thing we hear from districts,” Vicki Zubovic, who heads outreach for Khan Academy’s new classroom A.I. service, told me.

The government is on board, too. President Trump signed an executive order in April urging schools to integrate A.I. into classrooms at all grade levels. He said doing so would be necessary “to ensure the United States remains a global leader in this technological revolution.”

Will it help students learn?

While tech companies promise that A.I. can facilitate “personalized learning,” many students and educators are simply using chatbots as a sophisticated search engine. (Some also use it to cheat, including by drafting essays.) The Jetsonian features are familiar; interview-prep bots and virtual tutors have been around for years.

Julia Kaufman, who tracks national education data for the RAND Corporation, told me that it was “really hard to know” whether A.I. would actually improve student learning. Since the tools are so new, there’s virtually no research on their efficacy yet.

Laptop programs offer a sobering precedent. They modestly improved students’ long-term achievement: An analysis of 10 studies found “small” but statistically significant bumps in writing, math and science. But those gains often relied on teacher buy-in and revamped curriculums — and fell short of interventions like reducing class sizes and offering tutors.

This time around, the stakes are arguably higher. A generation of students is learning what it means to coexist with — and depend on — powerful, often opaque technology. In many cases, they’re handing over their data to tech companies. And researchers won’t know for years whether the experiment has worked.

MM 1093 - Break the Rules for Great Conversations

From Marshall Memo #1093

 Summary:

Dan Rockwell shares practical ways to improve conversations by strategically breaking the “don’t interrupt” rule—using curiosity, gentle humor, and thoughtful redirection to deepen dialogue. He encourages listeners to be engaged, vulnerable, and playful, especially in trusted relationships and intentional settings.

Danielson Domain:

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment –  2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport; 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques

MM 1093: Conflict Intelligence - Handling Difficult Conversations

 From Marshall Memo #1093

Summary:

Peter Coleman introduces the concept of conflict intelligence—a set of leadership skills that includes emotional regulation, deep listening, situational adaptability, and systems thinking—to manage rising workplace tension. By cultivating these skills, leaders can transform conflict into a source of creativity, trust, and long-term organizational growth rather than avoidance or dysfunction.

Danielson Domain:

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities – especially 4d: Participating in a Professional Community and 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally, 4f: Showing Professionalism, especially regarding navigating interpersonal tensions in a school community.