Cinemorphosis

Tag: teaching

  • David Letterman Killed Disco, But Can He Save My Class?

    David Letterman Killed Disco, But Can He Save My Class?

    In one fell swoop, David Letterman killed disco. Not just the music, but the entire polyester empire of rhinestone smarm and sweat-drenched earnestness. Letterman wasn’t seduced by mirror balls. He walked on stage with his arctic deadpan, and with irony as his weapon, executed disco in front of a live studio audience.

    I was just starting college then—a lifelong bodybuilder and Olympic weightlifter who could hoist a barbell but couldn’t hoist a personality. Muscles, yes. Presence, no.

    I didn’t just want to be David Letterman. I wanted to graft his sardonic detachment onto the icy brilliance of Vladimir Nabokov—a cocktail of late-night sarcasm and literary menace. I didn’t know what I wanted to be, exactly, only that it had to involve confidence, storytelling, performance—something that allowed me to “give a presentation.”

    By accident, I stumbled into teaching. In 1987, the chancellor of Humanities at Merritt College launched a pilot program to deliver classes at Skyline High School in Oakland, and none of the full-time faculty wanted the job. My neighbor, Felix Elizalde, whose kids went to school with me, threw me a lifeline. One gig snowballed into another, and soon I was a full-time college writing instructor.

    That was thirty-eight years ago. For most of them, I would have told you the hardest part of the job was grading essays—an endless swamp of half-baked theses and misplaced commas. But now, in 2025, grading essays is only the second hardest task. The first? Something educators and administrators alike love to call “student engagement.”

    I don’t know if it’s the black hole of smartphones or the simple math of age—I’m nearly forty-five years older than my students. Probably both. Either way, I can no longer stand in front of a classroom, channel my inner Letterman, and spin stories until the room vibrates with attention. Instead, I stand beside a giant screen plastered with Google Slides. My students are “visual learners,” raised on swipes and emojis.

    I could go back to the Letterman Method, earn some laughs, maybe even spike engagement for a few minutes. But at what cost? The Google Slides aren’t as funny as my comedy routine, but they do hit the sacred “core concepts” and “Student Learning Outcomes.”

    I’ve become a ghost haunting the pedagogy manuals. Occasionally I slip, crack a joke, earn some chuckles, channel my younger self—but then I reel myself back in, because the templates for counterarguments and rebuttals won’t teach themselves.

    The students aren’t fooled. A few of the candid ones smirk: “Don’t worry, McMahon, ChatGPT will do it for us.”

    And so, as I enter my mid-sixties, I keep trying to stay aligned with the modern world. Yet every step forward feels like five steps backward, as if I’m not teaching writing anymore but rehearsing my own obsolescence.

  • Classroom Playback: What a Football Player Taught Me About the Hedonic Treadmill

    Classroom Playback: What a Football Player Taught Me About the Hedonic Treadmill

    I’m starting a series I’m calling The Classroom Playback, where I revisit conversations from class discussions and reflect on how they challenged my assumptions. More often than not, I’ve found it isn’t the instructor who does the teaching—it’s the students. This is my first installment.

    I teach a college writing class to the athletic department—an eclectic mix of football bruisers, soccer strikers, volleyball hitters, and water polo warriors. Two days ago, in the context of an essay that addresses a generation of young men who don’t work or study but play computer games in their bedrooms, I introduced the concept of the hedonic treadmill, the cruel little loop in which humans adapt to pleasure until the buzz wears off and they need to crank the dial higher, faster, and louder, until finally the machine spits them out, exhausted and miserable.

    To make the point vivid, I shared a story from a former student. His older brother had dropped out of college, moved back in with mom, and made a religion out of lying in bed. His life consisted of Netflix marathons on a laptop, constant texts to his girlfriend, and a bong glued to his lips. A self-sedated sloth with Wi-Fi.

    So I asked my athletes, “Does this guy sound happy to you?”

    One of the football players, a psychology major with a grin as wide as the end zone, shot up his hand and said, absolutely—this guy was living the dream. No responsibilities, no alarms, no essays. Everyone, he insisted, would be content to live such a life.

    My jaw dropped. A psychology major dazzled by the ecstasy of permanent adolescence? I reminded him—gently but with a sharp edge—that life demands connection, structure, and purpose if humans are to flourish. Without it, the brain rots. He smiled, nodded, and conceded my point. But the nod was polite, the smile indulgent. I wasn’t sure I had actually shaken his conviction that the guy with the bong had cracked the code.

    After the football player declared his envy for the bong-hugging bed-dweller texting his girlfriend, I scanned the room and realized my grand metaphor had belly-flopped. My hedonic treadmill example didn’t land, to use modern parlance. What I intended as a cautionary tale of mental rot registered instead as a spa brochure: Netflix, weed, and endless texting looked less like disintegration and more like a vacation package.

    With fifteen weeks left in the semester, I’ve had to remind myself of two things. First: I can’t demolish their fantasies in one lesson. The hedonic treadmill requires repeat assaults, examples from all angles, until they feel—not just know—the despair of a life without meaning. Clearly, Bong Boy failed to deliver the emotional punch.

    Second: these kids belong to the “I’ll Never Buy a House” Generation. Their skepticism is hardwired. To them, the fantasy of collapsing in bed with Netflix and THC isn’t just laziness; it’s an antidote to the endless hustle culture they know they’ll never escape.

    Therefore, my football player presented me with a lesson: As an instructor, I can’t be myopic and teach ideas such as the hedonic treadmill from a limited point of view. I have to see things through my students’ eyes. 

    I’m close to sixty-four. My students are nineteen. If I want to reach them, I need to remember the golden rule of teaching—or sales, or persuasion of any kind: know your audience, speak to their anxieties, and try to see life through their eyes. Otherwise, you’re not a communicator—you’re just an old, out-of-touch crank with a lecture.

    I want to thank my football player for opening my eyes and reminding me that the classroom is instructional for both instructors and students alike. 

  • Why Ideas Still Matter in a World of Machines

    Why Ideas Still Matter in a World of Machines

    One of my colleagues, an outstanding writing instructor for more than two decades, has mapped out her exit strategy. She earned a counseling master’s degree, recently completed her life coach certification, and told me she no longer believes in the mission of teaching college writing. Assigning prompts to students who submit AI-generated essays feels meaningless to her—and reading these machine-produced pages makes her physically ill.

    Her words jolted me. I have devoted nearly forty years to this vocation, a career sustained by the assumption that teaching the college essay is an essential skill for young people. We have long agreed that students must learn how to shape chaos into coherence, confront questions that matter to the human condition, write with clarity and force, construct persuasive arguments, examine counterpoints, form informed opinions, master formats, cultivate an authorial voice, and develop critical thinking in a world overflowing with fallacies and propaganda. We also teach students to live with “interiority”—to keep journals, build inner lives, and nurture ideas. These practices have been considered indispensable for personal and professional growth.

    But with AI in the picture, many of my colleagues, including the one planning her departure, now feel bitter and defeated. AI has supplanted us. To our students, AI is more than a tool; it is a counselor, therapist, life coach, tutor, content-generator, and editor that sits in their pockets. They have apps through which they converse with their AI “person.” Increasingly, students bond with these “people” more than with their teachers. They trust AI in ways they do not trust professionals, institutions, or the so-called “laptop class.”

    The sense of displacement is compounded by the quality of student work. Essays are now riddled with AI-speak, clichés, hollow uniformity, facile expressions, superficial analysis, misattributed quotations, hallucinated claims, and fabricated facts. And yet, for the professional world, this output will often suffice. Ninety-five percent of the time, AI’s mediocrity will be “good enough” as workplaces adjust to its speed and efficiency. Thus my colleagues suffer a third wound: irrelevance. If AI can produce serviceable writing quickly, bypassing the fundamentals we teach, then we are the dinosaurs of academia.

    On Monday, when I face my freshman composition students for the first time, I will have to address this reality. I will describe how AI—the merciless stochastic parrot—has unsettled instructors by generating uncanny-valley essays, winning the confidence of students, and leaving teachers uncertain about their place.

    Still, I am not entirely pessimistic about my role. Teaching writing has always required many hats, one of which is the salesman’s. I must sell my ideas, my syllabus, my assignments, and above all, the relevance of writing in students’ lives.

    This semester, I am teaching a class composed entirely of athletes, a measure designed to help with retention. On the first day, I will appeal to what they know best: drills. No athlete mistakes drills for performance. They exist to prepare the body and mind for the real contest. Football players run lateral and backward sprints to build stamina and muscle memory. Pianists practice scales and arpeggios to ready themselves for recitals. Writing drills serve the same purpose: they build the foundation beneath the performance.

    My second pitch will be about the human heart. Education does not begin in the brain; it begins when the heart opens. Just as the athlete “with heart” outperforms the one without it, the student who opens the heart to education learns lessons that endure for life.

    I will tell them about my childhood obsession with baseball. At nine, I devoured every Scholastic book on the subject I could order through Independent Elementary. Many of my heroes were African-American players who endured Jim Crow segregation—forced into separate hotels and restaurants, traveling at great risk. I read about legends like Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson, barred from Major League Baseball because of their race. Through their stories, I learned American history not as dates and facts, but through the eyes of men I revered. My heart opened, and I was educated in a way my schoolteachers never managed.

    I will also tell them about my lost years in college. I enrolled under threat of eviction from my mother and warnings that without higher education, I faced a life of poverty. I loathed classrooms, staring at the clock until I could escape to the gym for squats, deadlifts, and bench presses. Yet in an elective fiction class, I discovered Kafka—how he transmuted his nightmarish inner life into stories that illuminated his world. Then Nabokov, whose audacious style made me long to write with the same confidence, more than I ever longed for a luxury car. If I could capture Nabokov’s authority, I thought, I would be like the Tinman receiving his heart. I would be whole.

    These changes did not come from professors, institutions, or—certainly—not AI. They came from within me, from my heart opening to literature. And yet, a sobering realization remains: the spark for me came through reading, and I see little reading today. I am not dogmatic—perhaps today’s students can find their spark in a documentary on Netflix or an essay on their phones. What matters is the opening of the heart.

    I cannot deny my doubts about remaining relevant in the age of AI, but I believe in the enduring power of ideas. Ideas—true or false—shape lives. They can go viral, ignite movements, and alter history.

    That is why my first assignment will focus on the Liver King, a grifter who peddled “ancestral living” to young men desperate for discipline and belonging. Though he was exposed as a fraud, his message resonated because it spoke to a generation’s hunger for structure and meaning. My students will explore both the desperation of these young men and the manipulations of Bro Culture that preyed upon them.

    Ideas matter. They always have. They always will. My class will succeed or fail on the strength of the ideas I put before my students, and I must present them unapologetically—defended with both my brain and my heart.

  • Bahama Dreams

    Bahama Dreams

    You had been the worst college student ever. But to understand the full catastrophe, you had to start at the beginning.

    It was fall 1979. You were seventeen, riding high as an Olympic weightlifting champion and competitive bodybuilder. You had dreams of going big—Mr. Universe, Mr. Olympia—and then opening your own gym in the Bahamas. It all made perfect sense: a beautiful body, a tropical environment, and zero obligation to wear clothes beyond Speedos. Regular clothing gave you claustrophobia. You wanted to slather your shaved body in tanning oil and live free, unburdened by sleeves or pant legs.

    When you shared your paradise plan with your recently-divorced mother, she gave you her signature eye-roll. “Don’t be a nincompoop. You can’t isolate yourself from the world on some tropical island.”

    “Don’t worry,” you’d reply, dead serious. “I’ll be well connected. I’ll invite Frank Zane, Tom Platz, Robbie Robinson, Kalman Szkalak, Danny Padilla, Ron Teufel, Pete Grymkowski, and Rudy Hermosillo. We’ll hang out, drink pineapple protein shakes, and talk about how bodybuilding transformed our lives.”

    “They’re not your friends. They’re models in your stupid magazines,” she’d say. “I’m not an idiot.”

    Contrary to the meathead stereotype, you had earned straight As in high school. But your high school had been so dumbed down that a 4.0 GPA was about as meaningful as a participation ribbon. You had taken classes like “Money Matters,” where you learned to balance a checkbook and write rudimentary budgets. Your education had all the intellectual heft of a marshmallow.

    Another class, “Popular Lit,” required you to read three library books and submit one-page book reports. That was the semester. Your teacher, a ghost in a wool coat, spent her days reading tabloids and clipping her nails while you and your classmates pretended to read. She looked more like a sleep-deprived fortune teller than an educator.

    It was clear no one was preparing you for intellectual greatness. They were prepping you to stay out of prison and flip burgers with dignity. College wasn’t even part of your plan. Bodybuilding glory was. Still, you begrudgingly agreed to attend the local university to avoid being kicked out of the house and forced into the brutal world of full-time work.

    Despite your disdain for higher education, you saw signs of your future greatness. You had the body. You had the connections—like the time you trained with NFL legend John Matuszak, aka “the Tooz,” at The Weight Room in Hayward. Matuszak, nearly seven feet tall, was a force of nature. You two would bench press to England Dan and belt out love songs between reps.

    You also befriended fitness store owner Joe Corsi, a vampiric former bodybuilder in a sleeveless jumpsuit who told you with conviction that you were destined for greatness. You envisioned a Weider-style sponsorship complete with daily deliveries of steaks and supplements.

    College was supposed to be a brief detour. A holding pattern. A cover story.

    You failed miserably.

    You couldn’t stand your professors. You envied them—envied their tailored clothes, their African safaris, their artisanal puttanesca recipes. You resented their polished lectures and their effortless confidence. Your Ethics professor, a philandering dean with a toupee that behaved like a terrified woodland creature, became your personal nemesis.

    The university deemed you too hopeless for regular freshman composition. You were placed in Bonehead English, then demoted further into Pre-Bonehead, a class so embarrassing it was held in the basement next to the boiler room. Maintenance men would peer inside and snicker like you were part of a secret leper colony.

    Worse still, you may have just been stupid. When a neighbor’s Siberian Husky licked your lips, you panicked and called into KGO Talk Radio to ask if you could contract AIDS from a dog. You weren’t even dating anyone, yet you had managed to develop a highly specific form of neurotic celibacy.

    Your mother overheard the broadcast.

    “You need to cool it, buster,” she said.

    You agreed. You couldn’t believe you’d made it this far in life.

    You tried every major—Criminal Justice, Sociology, Psychology, History, Oceanography, Accounting. Each one drove you deeper into despair. You couldn’t stomach the language, the jargon, the self-congratulatory tone of academia. You dropped classes. You failed others. The university put you on academic probation and handed you your soul on a stick.

    You hit bottom.

    You considered alternatives: tech school, piano moving, garbage collection. The gym guy nicknamed “The Garbologist” said he could get you in with the sanitation department.

    You told your father. Over steaks on his patio, you made your case. You needed a job with good hours and gym time. Sanitation had potential.

    “You can’t be a garbage man,” your father said.

    “Why not?”

    “You’re too vain.”

    That stopped you cold. He was right.

    From that moment, you had an epiphany: You hated those classes because they were poorly written. What you craved was great writing. You became an English major. You also realized your fidgety nature required self-directed study. You bought your first grammar handbook and taught yourself the mechanics of language like it was the Rosetta Stone.

    You saw grammar as proof that the universe had structure. That your scattered life might be wrangled into order. Nietzsche once wrote, “We are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” Now you understood what he meant. Grammar was your God. Grammar was your salvation.

    You improved your grades. You got hired by the university’s Tutoring Center. Then they asked you to teach. The same institution that had nearly kicked you out now trusted you to educate others.

    That’s how you began your journey—from the worst college student ever… to the worst college professor alive.

  • Love in the Time of ChatGPT: On Teaching Writing in the Age of Algorithm

    Love in the Time of ChatGPT: On Teaching Writing in the Age of Algorithm

    In his New Yorker piece, “What Happens After A.I. Destroys College Writing?”, Hua Hsu mourns the slow-motion collapse of the take-home essay while grudgingly admitting there may be a chance—however slim—for higher education to reinvent itself before it becomes a museum.

    Hsu interviews two NYU undergrads, Alex and Eugene, who speak with the breezy candor of men who know they’ve already gotten away with it. Alex admits he uses A.I. to edit all his writing, from academic papers to flirty texts. Research? Reasoning? Explanation? No problem. Image generation? Naturally. He uses ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini—the full polytheistic pantheon of large language models.

    Eugene is no different, and neither are their classmates. A.I. is now the roommate who never pays rent but always does your homework. The justifications come standard: the assignments are boring, the students are overworked, and—let’s face it—they’re more confident with a chatbot whispering sweet logic into their ears.

    Meanwhile, colleges are flailing. A.I. detection software is unreliable, grading is a time bomb, and most instructors don’t have the time, energy, or institutional backing to play academic detective. The truth is, universities were caught flat-footed. The essay, once a personal rite of passage, has become an A.I.-assisted production—sometimes stitched together with all the charm and coherence of a Frankenstein monster assembled in a dorm room at 2 a.m.

    Hsu—who teaches at a small liberal arts college—confesses that he sees the disconnect firsthand. He listens to students in class and then reads essays that sound like they were ghostwritten by Siri with a mild Xanax addiction. And in a twist both sobering and dystopian, students don’t even see this as cheating. To them, using A.I. is simply modern efficiency. “Keeping up with the times.” Not deception—just delegation.

    But A.I. doesn’t stop at homework. It’s styling outfits, dispensing therapy, recommending gadgets. It has insinuated itself into the bloodstream of daily life, quietly managing identity, desire, and emotion. The students aren’t cheating. They’re outsourcing. They’ve handed over the messy bits of being human to an algorithm that never sleeps.

    And so, the question hangs in the air like cigar smoke: Are writing departments quaint relics? Are we the Latin teachers of the 21st century, noble but unnecessary?

    Some professors are adapting. Blue books are making a comeback. Oral exams are back in vogue. Others lean into A.I., treating it like a co-writer instead of a threat. Still others swap out essays for short-form reflections and response journals. But nearly everyone agrees: the era of the generic prompt is over. If your essay question can be answered by ChatGPT, your students already know it—and so does the chatbot.

    Hsu, for his part, doesn’t offer solutions. He leaves us with a shrug.

    But I can’t shrug. I teach college writing. And for me, this isn’t just a job. It’s a love affair. A slow-burning obsession with language, thought, and the human condition. Either you fall in love with reading and writing—or you don’t. And if I can’t help students fall in love with this messy, incandescent process of making sense of the world through words, then maybe I should hang it up, binge-watch Love Is Blind, and polish my résumé.

    Because this isn’t about grammar. This is about soul. And I’m in the love business.

  • I Have No Illusions About Converting My Students to “The Ways of Literacy”

    I Have No Illusions About Converting My Students to “The Ways of Literacy”

    My college students admit that they barely read. They avoid books. They’ll skim an article. Their “cognitive load” is taken up by texting on their phones and watching TikTok and YouTube videos. They don’t have bandwidth for doing deep reading.

    Many of them were in the eighth grade during the pandemic. They lost close to two years of school, spent time on their phones and Chromebooks, and see ChatGPT as a godsend. They can outsource college instructors’ writing assignments and no longer have to worry about grammar or formatting. 

    Teaching college writing, I have to meet students where they are. I have to teach them rhetorical skills, critical thinking skills, and the transforming power of literacy, so I show them powerful arguments, and what makes them persuasive, and people who have found their higher selves through literacy, such as Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X, and the happiness derived from Cal Newport’s notion of “deep work” as an antidote to the despair and nihilism of popular culture’s default setting for cheap dopamine hits, immediate gratification, and meretricious consumer hype. 

    The good news is that my lessons resonate with the students evidenced by their engagement with class discussions. The less than good news is that these philosophical discussions don’t turn them into readers, don’t make them want to trade their phones and social media platforms for a novel or a biography, and don’t make them want to learn the finer points of rhetoric. 

    My students are smart, decent, reasonable, and pragmatic. They learn what they feel is essential to adapt to life’s challenges. Doing a deep dive into reading and writing doesn’t seem that essential to them even though they’ll acknowledge many of the writers and writing samples I present to them are impressive and worthy of admiration. 

    My students seem to appreciate me for giving them an entertaining presentation and for having made the effort to sell literacy as an essential tool for becoming our aspirational selves, but at the end of the day, they focus on getting their homework done as efficiently as possible, working a part-time job to pay the bills, enjoying their friendships, and nurturing their romantic interest. 

    The unspoken agreement between my students and me is that I will be entertaining and enthusiastic about my subject for 90 minutes, but I will not have any delusions about converting them to The Ways of Literacy. That is a teacher’s fantasy, made even more elusive in the AI Age. 

  • The Handwriting Is on the Wall for Writing Instructors Like Myself

    The Handwriting Is on the Wall for Writing Instructors Like Myself

    There’s a cliché I’ve avoided all my life because I’m supposed to be offended by cliches. I teach college writing. But now, God help me, I must say it: I see the handwriting on the wall. And it’s blinking in algorithmic neon and blinding my eyes.

    I’ve taught college writing for forty years. My wife, a fellow lifer in the trenches, has clocked twenty-five teaching sixth and seventh graders. Like other teachers, we got caught off-guard by AI writing platforms. We’re now staring down the barrel of obsolescence while AI platforms give us an imperious smile and say, “We’ve got this now.”

    Try crafting an “AI-resistant” assignment. Go ahead. Ask students to conduct interviews, keep journals, write about memories. They’ll feed your prompt into ChatGPT and create an AI interview, journal entry, and personal reflection that has all the depth and soul of stale Pop-Tart. You squint your eyes at these AI responses, and you can tell something isn’t right. They look sort of real but have a robotic element about them. Your AI-detecting software isn’t reliable so you refrain from making accusations. 

    When I tell my wife I feel that my job is in danger, she shrugs and says there’s little we can do. The toothpaste is out of the tube. There’s no going back. 

    I suppose my wife will be a glorified camp counselor with grading software. For me, it will be different. I teach college. I’ll have to attend a re-education camp dressed up as “professional development.” I’ll have to learn how to teach students to prompt AI like Vegas magicians—how to trick it into coherence, how to interrogate its biases. Writing classes will be rebranded as Prompt Engineering.”

    At sixty-three, I’m no fool. I know what happens to tired draft horses when the carriage goes electric. I’ve seen the pasture. I can smell the industrial glue. And I’m not alone. My colleagues—bright, literate, and increasingly demoralized—mutter the same bitter mantra: “We are the AI police. And the criminals are always one jailbreak ahead.”

  • Deepfakes and Detentions: My Career as an Unwilling Digital Cop

    Deepfakes and Detentions: My Career as an Unwilling Digital Cop

    Yesterday, in the fluorescent glow of my classroom, I broke the fourth wall with my college students. We weren’t talking about comma splices or rhetorical appeals—we were talking about AI and cheating, which is to say, the slow erosion of trust in education, digitized and streamed in real time.

    I told them, point blank: every time I design an assignment that I believe is AI-resistant, some clever student will run it through an AI backchannel and produce a counterfeit good polished enough to win a Pulitzer.

    Take my latest noble attempt at authenticity: an interview-based paragraph. I assign them seven thoughtful questions. They’re supposed to talk to someone they know who struggles with weight management—an honest, human exchange that becomes the basis for their introduction. A few will do it properly, bless their analog souls. But others? They’ll summon a fictional character from the ChatGPT multiverse, conduct a fake interview, and then outsource the writing to the very bot that cooked up their imaginary source.

    At this point, I could put on my authoritarian costume—Digital Police cap, badge, mirrored shades—and demand proof: “Upload an audio or video clip of your interview to Canvas.” I imagine myself pounding my chest like a TSA agent catching a contraband shampoo bottle. Academic integrity: enforced!

    Wrong.

    They’ll serve me a deepfake. A synthetic voice, a synthetic face, synthetic sincerity. I’ll counter with new tech armor, and they’ll leapfrog it with another trick, and on and on it goes—an infinite arms race in the valley of uncanny computation.

    So I told them: “This isn’t why I became a teacher. I’m not here to play narc in a dystopian techno-thriller. I’ll make this class as compelling as I can. I’ll appeal to your intellect, your curiosity, your hunger to be more than a prompt-fed husk. But I’m not going to turn into a surveillance drone just to catch you cheating.”

    They stared back at me—quiet, still, alert. Not scrolling. Not glazed over. I had them. Because when we talk about AI, the room gets cold. They sense it. That creeping thing, coming not just for grades but for jobs, relationships, dreams—for the very idea of effort. And in that moment, we were on the same sinking ship, looking out at the rising tide.

  • Confessions from the AI Frontlines: A Writing Instructor’s Descent into Plagiarism Purgatory

    Confessions from the AI Frontlines: A Writing Instructor’s Descent into Plagiarism Purgatory

    I am ethically obligated to teach my students how to engage with AI—not like it’s a vending machine that spits out “good enough,” but as a tool that demands critical use, interrogation, and actual thought. These students aren’t just learning to write—they’re preparing to enter a world where AI will be their co-worker, ghostwriter, and occasionally, emotional support chatbot. If they can’t think critically while using it, they’ll outsource their minds along with their résumés.

    So, I build my assignments like fortified bunkers. Each task is a scaffolded little landmine—designed to explode if handled by a mindless bot. Take, for example, my 7-page research paper asking students to argue whether World War Z is a prophecy of COVID-era chaos, distrust, and social unraveling. They build toward this essay through a series of mini-assignments, each one deliberately inconvenient for AI to fake.

    Mini Assignment #1: An introductory paragraph based on a live interview. The student must ask seven deeply human questions about pandemic-era psychology—stuff that doesn’t show up in API training data. These aren’t just prompts; they’re empathy traps. Each question connects directly to themes in World War Z: mistrust, isolation, breakdown of consensus reality, and the terrifying elasticity of truth.

    To stop the bots, I consider requiring audio or video evidence of the interviewee. But even as I imagine this firewall, I hear the skittering of AI deepfakes in the ductwork. I know what’s coming. I know my students will find a way to beat me.

    And that’s when I begin to spiral.

    What started as teaching has now mutated into digital policing. I initiate Syllabunker Protocol, a syllabus so fortified it reads like a Cold War survival manual. My rubric becomes a lie detector. My assignments, booby traps.

    But the students evolve faster than I do.

    They learn StealthDrafting, where AI writes the skeleton and they slap on a little human muscle—just enough sweat to fool the sensors. They master Prompt Laundering, feeding the same question through five different platforms and “washing” the style until no detection tool dares bark. My countermeasures only teach them how to outwit me better.

    And thus I find myself locked in combat with The Plagiarism Hydra. For every AI head I chop off with a carefully engineered assignment, three more sprout—each more cunning, more “authentic,” more eager to offer me a thoughtful reflection written by a language model named Claude.

    This isn’t a class anymore. It’s an arms race. A Cold War of Composition. I set traps, they leap them. I raise standards, they outflank them. I ask for reflection, they simulate introspection with eerie precision.

    The irony? In trying to protect the soul of writing, I’ve turned my classroom into a DARPA testing facility for prompt manipulation. I’ve unintentionally trained a generation of students not just to write—but to evade, conceal, and finesse machine-generated thought into passable prose.

    So here I am, red pen in hand, staring into the algorithmic abyss. And the abyss, of course, has already rewritten my syllabus.

  • How to Use a Process Journal to Teach Critical Thinking to Students

    How to Use a Process Journal to Teach Critical Thinking to Students

    One of the most urgent challenges in today’s writing classroom is not getting students to submit essays—it’s getting them to think while doing it. As generative AI continues to automate grammar, structure, and even “voice,” the real question is this: How do we reward intellectual work in an age when polished prose can be faked?

    One answer is deceptively simple: grade the thinking, not just the product.

    To do that, we must build assignments that expose the messy, iterative, and reflective nature of real analysis. We’re talking about work that requires metacognition, self-assessment, and visible decision-making—tools like reflective annotations, process journals, and “thinking out loud” assignments. These formats ask students not just to present a claim but to show how they arrived at it.

    Let’s take the following essay prompt as a case study:

    In World War Z, a global pandemic rapidly spreads, unleashing chaos, institutional breakdown, and the fragmentation of global cooperation. Though fictional, the film can be read as an allegory for the very real dysfunction and distrust that characterized the COVID-19 pandemic. Using World War Z as a cultural lens, write an essay in which you argue how the film metaphorically captures the collapse of public trust, the dangers of misinformation, and the failure of collective action in a hyper-polarized world. Support your argument with at least three of the following sources: Jonathan Haidt’s “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” Ed Yong’s “How the Pandemic Defeated America,” Seyla Benhabib’s “The Return of the Sovereign,” and Zeynep Tufekci’s “We’re Asking the Wrong Questions of Facebook.”

    To ensure students are doing the cognitive heavy lifting, pair this prompt with a process journal designed to track how students analyze, revise, and reflect. Here’s how that works:

    Assignment Title: Thinking in the Rubble: A Process Journal for the Collapse of Trust Essay

    Overview:
    As students build their World War Z argument, they’ll also keep a process journal—a candid record of how they think, doubt, change direction, and use (or resist) AI tools. Think of it as a behind-the-scenes cut of their essay in the making. The journal is worth 20% of the final grade and will be assessed for clarity, critical insight, and honest engagement with the writing process.

    Journal Requirements:

    1. Reflective Annotations (Pre-Writing)

    Choose one paragraph from each of the three sources you plan to use. For each, write a 4–5 sentence annotation addressing:

    • Why you chose it
    • What it reveals about trust, misinformation, or institutional failure
    • How you might use it in your essay

    📌 Goal: Show how you’re thinking with your sources—not just cherry-picking quotes.

    2. Thesis Evolution Timeline

    Document your thesis at 2–3 stages of development. For each version:

    • State your working thesis (even if it’s a mess)
    • Explain what caused you to change or clarify it
    • Note the moment of insight or struggle that sparked the revision

    📌 Goal: Track the intellectual arc of your argument.

    3. Thinking Out Loud Log

    Choose one option:

    • Audio: Record a 3–5 minute voice memo in which you talk through a draft issue (e.g., integrating a source, clarifying your angle, or refining a counterargument)
    • Written: Compose a 300-word journal entry about a problem spot in your draft and how you’re trying to fix it

    📌 Goal: Reveal the inner dialogue behind your writing decisions.

    4. AI Transparency Statement (If Applicable)

    If you used ChatGPT or any AI tool at any point, briefly document:

    • Your prompt(s)
    • The output you received
    • What you kept, changed, or rejected
    • Why

    📌 Goal: Reflect on AI’s influence—not to punish, but to encourage digital literacy and self-awareness.

    5. Final Reflection (Post-Essay, 300 Words)

    After submitting your essay, write a closing reflection that answers:

    • What new insight did you gain about public trust or misinformation?
    • What was the hardest part of the process—and how did you push through?
    • What part of your final paper are you proudest of, and why?

    📌 Goal: Practice self-assessment and connect the work to broader learning.

    Submission Format:

    Submit as a single Google Doc or PDF titled:
    LastName_ThinkingInTheRubble

    Assessment Criteria (20 Points Total):

    • Depth and honesty of reflection
    • Evidence of critical engagement with readings and ideas
    • Clear documentation of thesis development and revision
    • Intellectual transparency (especially regarding AI use)
    • Clarity, specificity, and personal insight across all entries

    This process journal does more than scaffold an essay—it teaches students how to think. And more importantly, it gives instructors a way to see that thinking, reward it, and design grading practices that can’t be hijacked by a chatbot with decent syntax.