Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) large language models has increased in both professional and classroom technical writing settings. One common response to student use of GAI is to increase surveillance, incorporating plagiarism detection services or banning certain composing activities from the classroom. This paper argues such measures are harmful and instead proposes a “CARE” framework: critical, authorial, rhetorical, and educational—a nuanced approach emphasizing ethical and contextual AI use in technical writing classrooms. This framework aligns with plagiarism best practices, initially devised from when rhetoric and composition scholars considered the pedagogical implications of the Internet.

Keywords

artificial intelligence plagiarism pedagogy surveillance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amidon

T. R.

Hutchinson

Herrington

T. K.

Reyman

(2019). Copyright, content, & control: Student authorship across educational technology platforms. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 24(1). http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/24.1/topoi/amidon-et-al/index.html

Anson

C. M.

(2011). Fraudulent practices: Academic misrepresentations of plagiarism in the name of good pedagogy. Composition Studies, 39(2), 29–43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/compstud.39.2.0029

Barnett

(2023, March 14). ChatGPT is being used in college and university courses. Here’s what you need to know. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/chatgpt-college-university-plagiarism/

Beck

Hutchinson Campos

(Eds.). (2001). Privacy matters: Conversations about surveillance within and beyond the classroom. University Press of Colorado.

Bergmans

Bouali

Luttikhuis

Rensink

(2021). On the efficacy of online proctoring using proctorio. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computer supported education (CSEDU 2021) – volume 1 (pp. 279–290). Science and Technology Publications, Lda.

Bjork

(forthcoming). Extractive AI and its challenge to technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.

Bloom

L. Z.

(2008). Insider writing: Plagiarism-proof assignments. In Eisner

Vicinus

(Eds.), Originality, imitation, and plagiarism: Teaching writing in the digital age (pp. 208–218). The University of Michigan Press.

Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2019, December 30). Defining and avoiding plagiarism: The WPA statement on best practices. https://wpacouncil.org/aws/CWPA/pt/sd/news_article/272555/_PARENT/layout_details/false

Crooks

(2019). Cat-and-mouse games: Dataveillance and performativity in urban schools. Surveillance & Society, 17(3/4), 484–498. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i3/4.7098

10.

Darby

(2023, November 13). Why you should rethink your resistance to ChatGPT. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://chronicle.com/article/why-you-should-rethink-your-resistance-to-chatgpt

11.

Derkatch

(2022). Why wellness sells: Natural health in a pharmaceutical culture. Johns Hopkins University Press.

12.

DeVoss

Rosati

A. C.

(2002). “It wasn’t me, was it?” plagiarism and the web. Computers and Composition, 19(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(02)00112-3

13.

Ema

Fujigaki

(2011). How far can child surveillance go?: Assessing the parental perceptions of an RFID child monitoring system in Japan. Surveillance & Society, 9(1/2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v9i1/2.4105

14.

Foucault

(1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books.

15.

Frost

E. A.

Sharp-Hoskins

(2015). Authorial ethos as location: How technical manuals embody authorial ethos without authors. In Robillard

A. E.

Fortune

(Eds.), Authorship contested: Cultural challenges to the authentic, autonomous author (pp. 71–88). Routledge.

16.

Ghaffary

(2023, September 21). Universities rethink using AI writing detectors to vet students’ work. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-21/universities-rethink-using-ai-writing-detectors-to-vet-students-work?srnd=technology-vp

17.

Hawisher

G. E.

Selfe

C. L.

(1991). The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication, 42(1), 55–65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/357539

18.

Howard

R. M.

(1992). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–245.

19.

Howard

R. M.

(1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i216158

20.

Howard

R. M.

(2001, November 16). Forget about policing plagiarism. Just teach. Chronicle of Higher Ed. https://www.chronicle.com/article/forget-about-policing-plagiarism-just-teach/

21.

Howard

R. M.

(2004). Understanding “internet plagiarism”. Computers and Composition, 24(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2006.12.005

22.

(2023, February 2). ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base – analyst note. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/

23.

Jeyaraj

(2004). Liminality and othering: The issue of rhetorical authority in technical discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18(1), 9–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651903257958

24.

Johnson-Eilola

Selber

S. A.

York

E. J.

(2024). Can artificial intelligence robots write effective instructions? Journal of Business and Technical Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519241239641

25.

Johnson

G. P.

(2021). Grades as a technology of surveillance: Normalization, control, and big data in the teaching of writing. In Beck

Hutchinson Campos

(Eds.), Privacy matters: Conversations about surveillance within and beyond the classroom (pp. 53–74). University Press of Colorado.

26.

Johnson

(2023, January 18). ChatGPT in schools: Here’s where it’s banned and how it could potentially help students. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/01/18/chatgpt-in-schools-heres-where-its-banned-and-how-it-could-potentially-help-students/?sh=a14eb856e2c6

27.

Keränen

(2010). How does a pathogen become a terrorist? The collective transformation of risk into bio(in)security. In Leach

Dysart-Gale

(Eds), Rhetorical questions of health and medicine (pp. 77–96). Lexington Books.

28.

Kirchner

J. H.

Ahmad

Aaronson

Leike

(2023, January 31). New AI classifier for indicating AI-written text. OpenAI Blog. https://openai.com/blog/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai-written-text

29.

Kitalong

K. S.

(1998). A web of symbolic violence. Computers and Composition, 15(2), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(98)90058-5

30.

Knox

(2023, April 3). Can Turnitin cure higher ed’s AI fever? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/04/03/turnitins-solution-ai-cheating-raises-faculty-concerns

31.

Kumar

P. C.

Vitak

Chetty

Clegg

T. L.

(2019). The platformization of the classroom: Teachers as surveillant consumers. Surveillance & Society, 17(1/2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i1/2.12926

32.

Luhmann

(1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In Geyer

& van der Zouwen

(Eds.), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes (Vol. 6, pp. 172–192). Sage.

33.

Lyon

(2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. McGraw-Hill.

34.

Marsh

(2007). Alchemy and remedy in higher education. SUNY University Press.

35.

Marx

G. T.

(2005). Surveillance and society. In Ritzer

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory (Vol. 1, pp. 817–821). Sage.

36.

Maryon

Dubre

Elliott

Escareno

Fagan

M. H.

Standridge

Lieneck

(2022). COVID-19 academic integrity violations and trends: A rapid review. Education Sciences, 12(12), 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120901

37.

Mavoa

Coghlan

Nansen

(2023). “It’s about safety not snooping”: Parental attitudes to child tracking technologies and geolocation data. Surveillance & Society, 21(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v21i1.15719

38.

MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI. (2023, February, 21). Quick start guide to AI and writing. Modern Language Association and Conference on College Composition and Communication. https://aiandwriting.hcommons.org/resources/

39.

Monahan

Torres

R. D.

(Eds.). (2010). Schools under surveillance: Cultures of control in public education. Rutgers University Press.

40.

Mosco

(2021). Plagiarism and copyright: An analysis of technical communication textbooks. Technical Communication, 68(2), 87–102.

41.

Nemorin

(2017). Post-panoptic pedagogies: The changing nature of school surveillance in the digital age. Surveillance & Society, 15(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v15i2.6033

42.

Packer

Reeves

(2020). Killer apps: War, media, machine. Duke University Press.

43.

Price

(2002). Beyond “gotcha!”: Situating plagiarism in policy and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 88–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/1512103

44.

Purdy

J. P.

(2005). Calling off the hounds: Technology and the visibility of plagiarism. Pedagogy, 5(2), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-5-2-275

45.

Purdy

J. P.

(2009). Anxiety and the archive: Understanding plagiarism detection services as digital archives. Computers and Composition, 26(2), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2008.09.002

46.

Reymann

(2008). Rethinking plagiarism for technical communication. Technical Communication, 55(1), 61–67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40120302

47.

Ritter

(2005). The economics of authorship: Online paper mills, student writers, and first year composition. College Composition and Communication, 56(4), 601–631. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30037888

48.

Ritter

(2006). Buying in, selling short: A pedagogy against the rhetoric of online paper mills. Pedagogy, 6(1), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-6-1-25

49.

Selwyn

O’Neill

Smith

Andrejevic

(2023). A necessary evil: The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media International Australia, 186(1), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X211005862

50.

Simmons

(2010). The docile body in school space. In Monahan

Torres

R. D.

(Eds.), Schools under surveillance: Cultures of control in public education (pp. 55–70). Rutgers University Press.

51.

Singh

S. S.

Davis

J. E.

Gilliard

(2021). “Smart” educational technology: A conversation between Sava Saheli Singh, Jade E. Davis, and Chris Gilliard. Surveillance & Society, 19(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v19i2.14812

52.

Slack

J. D.

Miller

D. J.

Doak

(1993). The technical communicator as author: Meaning, power, authority. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7(1), 12–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651993007001002

53.

Smith

G. J. D.

(2012). Surveillance work(ers). In Lyon

Haggerty

K. D.

Ball

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of surveillance studies (pp. 107–115). Routledge.

54.

Smith

G. J. D.

(2015). Opening the black box: The work of watching. Routledge.

55.

St. Amant

(2021). Afterword: Contending with COVID-19 and beyond: The 5Cs of educational evolution. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(1), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281620977157

56.

Trust

Whalen

Mouza

(2023). Editorial: ChatGPT: Challenges, opportunities, and implications for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1). https://citejournal.org/volume-23/issue-1-23/editorial/editorial-chatgpt-challenges-opporunities-and-implications-for-teacher-education/

57.

Turnitin. (2023, July 25). Turnitin AI detection feature reviews more than 65 million papers. https://www.turnitin.com/press-releases/turnitin-ai-detection-feature-reviews-more-65-million-papers

58.

Turnitin. (n.d.). Turnitin’s AI writing detection available now. https://www.turnitin.com/solutions/topics/ai-writing/

59.

UNC Chapel Hill Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Generative AI usage guidance. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://provost.unc.edu/student-generative-ai-usage-guidance/

60.

University of Louisville, Department of English. (2009, March). Policy against the sue of plagiarism detection software. https://louisville.edu/english/composition/policy-against-the-use-of-plagiarism-detection-software.html

61.

Valentine

(2006). Plagiarism as literacy practice: Recognizing and rethinking ethical binaries. College Composition and Communication, 58(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc20065884

62.

Vie

(2013). A pedagogy of resistance toward plagiarism detection technologies, Computers and Composition 30(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2013.01.002

63.

Watters

(2020). School work and surveillance. https://hackeducation.com/2020/04/30/surveillance

64.

Young

(2023). Working through surveillance and technical communication: Concepts and connections. SUNY Press.

65.

Zuboff

(2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the frontier of power. Public Affairs.

66.

Zwagerman

(2008). The scarlet p: Plagiarism, panopticism, and the rhetoric of academic integrity. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 676–710. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc20086674

Surveillance Work in (and) Teaching Technical Writing with AI

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References