InkSights: who got the grade?

“A student used AI to write an essay and got the highest score.”

That was the topic we gave our young column writers during the recent InkSights Unscripted masterclass in column writing. Just one sentence. But you could already sense where the reactions would go. Unfair. Cheating. Paano naman iyong nagsulat talaga? I could understand that. Imagine spending an evening staring at a blank screen, writing, deleting, starting again, and finally submitting something you can call your own. Then somebody types a prompt, gets an essay in seconds, and walks away with the highest score. Aray.

Our writers spent part of our seven-hour session trying to make sense of that situation. Some blamed the student. Some questioned the teacher. Others went after AI itself. But after reading their pieces, I found myself more interested in those who stayed with the problem a little longer. If AI wrote the essay, what did the high score actually measure? And what if AI helped only with grammar or organization? What if the ideas were really the student’s? Somewhere along the way, a simple cheating issue became less simple.

The titles alone showed how differently they saw it. Junrie Paul Fortaleza of Iloilo City wrote High Marks, Hollow Learning. Adelle Ludero of Iloilo had A Perfect Counterfeit. JL Lagdamen of Iloilo played with I Know or AI Know? Jaybee-Ann Macahilo of Capiz asked Gabay o Pandaraya?, while Nhick Andrei Mencino of Iloilo City called his Katulong na Nagiging Kapalit. Then there was Jayden Lyle Darcy Tonogan of Antique with Ako Nalang ang Gumigising nang Maaga. I smiled at that one. You could almost hear the complaint before reading the first paragraph.

I can understand why the situation bothered some of our writers. One student gets up early, stares at the opening, changes it three times, checks a source, and finally gets the essay done. Another asks AI to write one before breakfast. Then that essay gets the higher score. Masakit nang kaunti. I would probably grumble, too.

Then again, perhaps the first student gained something the grade did not show. Writing can be messy. You start out sure of your point, get halfway through, and realize you are not so sure anymore. You rewrite. You argue with yourself. Eventually, something becomes clearer. That struggle may not appear on the final page, but much of the learning happened there.

That is also why I hesitate to lump all AI use together. There is a big difference between asking for help with an idea and asking for an entire essay. AI can sit beside the writer. The problem begins when it takes the writer’s chair. Even asking for possible angles can lead somewhere useful if you eventually do the thinking yourself. I liked Mencino’s take on the issue because it gets close to the problem. He somehow proposes a question: When does the helper begin doing so much that there is hardly anyone left to help?

Anton Gene Dayot of Passi City made things even messier with AI Hysteria. What happens to the student who actually wrote a very good essay but is immediately told, “AI ‘yan, no?” I have seen how quickly that suspicion can enter conversations now. Apparently, writing too well can get you into trouble, too. That is an odd place for education to find itself. Surely we do not want young writers deliberately adding awkward sentences just to prove there is a human being behind the keyboard.

Then there is the teacher. It is tempting to ask how a teacher could give the highest score to an AI-written essay. But teachers do not have magical AI vision. A clean paper comes in. The argument is organized. The grammar behaves itself for once. The rubric says the work is excellent. So what happens now? Maybe reading the finished essay is no longer enough. Before using ZeroGPT, Grammarly, Turnitin, or Quillbot, ask the student about it. Why this argument? Where did this idea come from? What did you mean here? A student who wrote and understood the piece should have something to say beyond, “Sir, nasa essay naman po.”

I noticed, too, that some of our workshop pieces became angry very quickly. AI became the villain. The student became lazy. The teacher became careless. Education was apparently one chatbot away from collapse. I understand why. Anger gives a column energy. The trouble is that it can also make us stop looking. Once we have identified the villain in paragraph one, the remaining paragraphs sometimes become witnesses for the prosecution.

Maybe there are other things hiding behind that student and the AI-written essay. A deadline at 11:59 p.m. Three other requirements waiting. Pressure to keep a grade up. A student who has learned that the important thing is getting 95 rather than understanding why the answer deserves 95. None of these makes passing off AI’s work as one’s own acceptable. But they do make me wonder whether AI created the problem or simply found a very convenient opening in a problem that was already there.

That is one thing I hope our young writers remember when they reach the DSPC, and, hopefully, the RSPC in Kalibo and beyond. A column does not always become stronger by becoming angrier. Sometimes the better piece is the one that stays curious for another paragraph. Check the facts. Be suspicious of convenient statistics. Give the other side a fair hearing. And when everybody else has already found the obvious answer, look around once more. There may be another question sitting nearby.

I had plenty of comments for our writers after seven hours. As usual, I also went home with something to think about. We began with a student, an AI-written essay, and the highest score in class. At first, the unfairness seemed to be the whole story. I am no longer sure it is.

The essay may be excellent. Every comma may be where it belongs. The introduction may hook, the paragraphs may flow, and the conclusion may land beautifully. The teacher can write 98 at the top.

But before handing it back, I have a feeling many of our InkSights column writers would be wondering the same thing I am.

Who got the grade?

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a ”student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.