# Repurposing Text-Generating AI into a Thought-Provoking Writing Tutor

Tyler Taewook Kim<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Columbia University116th and
BroadwayNew YorkNYUSA10027 and  Quan Tan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Columbia
University116th and BroadwayNew YorkNew YorkUSA10027

(2023)

###### Abstract.

Text-generating AI technology has the potential to revolutionize writing
education. However, current AI writing-support tools are limited to providing
linear feedback to users. In this work, we demonstrate how text-generating AI
can be repurposed into a thought-provoking writing tutor with the addition of
recursive feedback mechanisms. Concretely, we developed a prototype AI
writing-support tool called Scraft that asks Socratic questions to users and
encourages critical thinking. To explore how Scraft can aid with writing
education, we conducted a preliminary study with 15 students in a university
writing class. Participants expressed that Scraft’s recursive feedback is
helpful for improving their writing skills. However, participants also noted
that Scraft’s feedback is sometimes factually incorrect and lacks context. We
discuss the implications of our findings and future research directions.

††copyright: acmcopyright††journalyear: 2023††doi:
XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX††conference: The ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems; April 23-28, 2023; Hamburg, Germany††copyright: none††ccs:
Human-centered computing HCI design and evaluation methods

##  1\. Introduction

Before the internet, conducting information search for writing was an analog
and resource-intensive process. However, with the widespread adoption of the
internet, this process underwent a great change, giving rise to the
information age and the democratization of knowledge. We believe that text-
generating AI will lead to an even more radical transform to writing, by
fundamentally transforming both the writing process and writing education.

One’s writing skills may soon depend on one’s ability to use AI writing-
support tools, analogous to how information search skills depend on one’s
ability to use the internet. While this may exhibit efficacy in writing
productivity, this presents implications in writing education, as AI may soon
contribute to a shift in core writing pedagogies such as critical thinking and
self-reflection. As such, we contend that AI writing-support tools should
focus on preserving writing’s recursive and thought-provoking nature.

##  2\. The importance of recursive feedback in writing education

Current AI writing-support tools are typically limited to providing linear
feedback to users. They facilitate a writing process where text-generating AI
directly provide outputs to user prompts, greatly minimizing opportunities for
recursive and iterative user involvement. We are particularly concerned that
excessive exposure to such tools may deprive users of the opportunity to
develop their writing skills, including skills that are often co-developed
with writing such as critical thinking.

This is because writing is an inherently recursive process, rather than a
linear one. Thus, we contend it is critical that educational AI writing-
support tools preserve the recursive nature of writing. For instance, the
process of argument development and feedback reception is a key element of
writing. To preserve this process, AI writing-support tools can utilize
recursive feedback, e.g., continuous generation of Socratic questions, as
opposed to linear feedback, e.g., direct answer generation. In this work, we
focus on providing recursive feedback in the form of Socratic questions,
however, recursive feedback refers to the general cyclical process in which a
user’s understanding serves as input for an iterative exchange that continues
to refine the learning experience (Okita and Schwartz, 2013).

AI writing-support tools that are limited to linear feedback only warrant
’regenerations’ or edits. However, tools with recursive feedback mechanisms
can enable users to improve their thinking and writing organically as the
feedback is tailored to users’ individual writing experience. Throughout the
writing process, users can request continuous and personalized feedback from
the AI writing-support tool, i.e., AI can be a personal writing tutor.

Figure 1. Scraft is an AI writing-support tool that provides recursive
feedback to users in the form of thought-provoking Socratic questions. More
information is available at https://scraft.ai.

##  3\. Scraft: Thought-provoking AI writing tutor

To realize its idea, we developed a prototype AI writing-support tool called
Scraft (Figure 1) that provides recursive feedback based on the Socratic
questioning method. The impetus for exploring this approach lies in its
capacity to cultivate critical thinking, which serves as a fundamental element
of writing pedagogy. Socratic questioning fosters a disciplined mode of
thought that actively monitors, evaluates, and restructures cognitive
processes, emotions, and actions in a rational manner (Elder and Paul, 1998).

The current prototype is designed to generate elementary recursive feedback by
continuously producing Socratic questions as users engage in the writing
process. When users incorporate the provided Socratic questions into their
work, Scraft adapts to this new input and generates an updated set of
feedback. This functionality is integrated within a conventional writing
document interface, featuring a sidebar for displaying the generated
questions. Additionally, users have the option to utilize an ”answer the
question for me” button, which enables them to receive suggested responses to
the Socratic questions at any given point during the writing process.

##  4\. Preliminary study

To explore how Scraft can aid with writing education, we conducted a
preliminary study with 15 students in a university writing class. Participants
used Scraft for a two-week period to work on a class assignment. Afterwards,
we conducted 15 minutes interviews with eight students. Below we summarize the
participants’ praises and complaints on the current prototype.

Starting with praises, many participants said they experienced an improvement
in their writing skills, and attributed it to Scraft’s Socratic questions.
These participants said that the questions encouraged them to critically think
about aspects of their writing they had not previously considered. Scraft’s
recursive feedback pinpointed areas in the participants’ writing that require
further development. By doing so, it encouraged the participants to conduct
more research on the writing topic and develop a deeper understanding.
Participants also mentioned that Scraft’s Socratic questions were useful for
anticipating potential counterarguments to their claims and preemptively
strengthen their writing.

The main complaint on the current prototype was that the provided Socratic
questions varied in their usefulness. Participants said some questions lacked
relevance to the writing topic. In other instances, the provided feedback
contracted one another or lacked factual accuracy. We find this to be
consistent with the findings of Dikli and Blyele (Dikli and Bleyle, 2014;
Dikli, 2013): Compared to human feedback, automated essay feedback may often
yield mixed outcomes as the effectiveness of such feedback may be undermined
by factors such as incomprehensibility, overly general content that is
challenging to implement, and overall inaccuracies in identifying essay
sections with errors or requiring correction.

##  5\. Conclusion

In summary, we demonstrated how text-generating AI can be repurposed into a
thought-provoking writing tutor by providing recursive feedback to users in
the form of Socratic questions. Our preliminary study with Scraft show the
potential of this approach. However, it also revealed limitations: Socratic
questions generated by current text-generating AI technology sometimes lack
relevance to the writing topic and are factually incorrect. These findings
underscore the need for further research on educational AI writing-support
tools to better support the recursive nature of the writing process and uphold
pedagogical principles that foster critical thinking and self-reflection in
student writers. We argue our proposed approach not only maintains but
enhances the natural processes of writing, i.e. drafting, which in
culmination, fosters the core pedagogical aspects of writing education.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank our participants for generously sharing their time and experiences.
We also thank Katy Ilonka Gero, Sunnie S. Y. Kim, and the anonymous reviewers
for their thoughtful feedback.

## References

  * (1)
  * Dikli (2013) Semire Dikli. 2013\.  The Nature of Automated Essay Scoring Feedback.  _CALICO Journal_ 28, 1 (Jan. 2013), 99–134.  https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.1.99-134
  * Dikli and Bleyle (2014) Semire Dikli and Susan Bleyle. 2014.  Automated Essay Scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback?  _Assessing Writing_ 22 (2014), 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006
  * Elder and Paul (1998) Linda Elder and Richard Paul. 1998.  The Role of Socratic Questioning in Thinking, Teaching, and Learning.  _The Clearing House_ 71, 5 (1998), 297–301.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/30189379
  * Okita and Schwartz (2013) Sandra Y. Okita and Daniel L. Schwartz. 2013.  Learning by Teaching Human Pupils and Teachable Agents: The Importance of Recursive Feedback.  _Journal of the Learning Sciences_ 22, 3 (2013), 375–412.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.807263 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.807263