Writing-Assisting AI Enables Learners to Think and Write with Their Passive Vocabulary and Develop it into Active Vocabulary

 

Writing-Assisting AI Enables Learners to Think and Write with Their Passive Vocabulary and Develop it into Active Vocabulary

 

 

 

AI is a tool that one can use foolishly or wisely

 

AI is just a tool for humans. Humans can misuse this new tool foolishly or utilize it wisely.

 

A foolish use of writing-assisting AI (translation and rewriting apps) is to uncritically adopt the language output of the AI (English in our argument). That immediate use can result in sentences that deviate from the writer's intentions. It does not help their learning English, either.

 

 

AI can facilitate the transformation of learners' comprehension vocabulary into presentation vocabulary

 

A smart way to use AI is to utilize it to learn English through its use (or use English while learning it). Users should recognize that AI as an assisting tool only produces an imperfect draft. However, they should also realize that AI's output expands their possibilities for thought and expression in a foreign language. AI can both be a practical and learning tool.

 

In other words, writing-assisting AI should be used to provide English learners with opportunities to think and express using their passive vocabulary rather than their active vocabulary in the target language. AI can facilitate the use of their passive language and change it to their means for presenting their thoughts.

 

In general, the number of active words that people use at their disposal to express their thoughts is much smaller than the number of passive words they use to understand the expressions of others. For instance, many Japanese people enjoy reading the works of Soseki Natsume, but few can write as Soseki.

 

When it comes to foreign languages, learners' active vocabulary is extremely limited. English classes in Japan still do not provide enough training in English presentation, and therefore, learners' resources for expression are highly restricted.

 

On the other hand, English language learners preparing for university entrance exams are trained in reading comprehension to a much higher level, and their comprehension vocabulary increases in the process. The vocabulary acquired from rote memorization may only produce an incomplete understanding of texts, though. However, in any case, the passive lexicon of learners who study English for university entrance exams outnumbers their active vocabulary.

 

Learners are aware of this vast difference between the vocabulary for comprehension and that for expressions. Probably, some learners are reluctant to engage in English presentation activities because they can only express themselves at a humiliatingly low level, far below the level of their intelligence. If that is the case, one of the challenges for English education in Japan is to develop learners' comprehension vocabulary into presentation vocabulary.

 

 

What I do in my classes

 

Suppose students have an assignment to write in English -- A writing assignment requiring extended reflective writing, not an impromptu speaking assignment. (My assumption is that AI is adequate for writing instruction but not for teaching speaking). To make my point clearer, I tentatively define a "writing assignment" as one that demands a long piece of writing in which students have to express their thoughts on a relatively complex topic accurately. To be specific, think of it as the level of a university writing class.

 

When learners have to express their thoughts in their foreign language (English), they are only allowed to think and write with their limited active vocabulary of English from start to finish. That process can be an exercise in utilizing the potentiality of their restricted resources. However, the vocabulary limit narrows the range of topics they can address. Even if they choose a challenging subject, the quality of their thoughts and drafts will diminish significantly.

 

Here I would like to share my teaching experiences. My university requires students to complete an English academic essay of more than 1,000 words in the second semester of their first year. One year, a student of mine said he wanted to write about the potential dangers of Genetically Modified Food. As I listened, he presented his argument for a few minutes, describing the risks in detail. I marveled at his expertise and encouraged him to write a high-quality essay.

 

However, when I assigned my students to write an outline in English in the next class, I found that that student’s thesis statement (i.e., the sentence at the end of the introduction that concretely declares the essay's claim) was only "GM Food is bad. " When students think and write in their active vocabulary in English, the products are often crude or, to be blunt, miserable. Knowing his high intelligence in Japanese, I felt troubled by the grave gap between his intellect and English.

 

In the following year, I decided to introduce machine translation (MT) in the last five weeks of my second-semester classes. In the first ten weeks, students write short passages in English without the help of AI, producing numerous mistakes. My role as a teacher is to share the policy that "the school is where learners can make mistakes without worry and learn from them." I avoid negative evaluation of mistakes and encourage students to learn specific English expressions from errors that we share in class.

 

At the same time, students go through brainstorming and outlining, gradually preparing a 3,000-word Japanese essay (as a rough draft of their final 1,000-word English paper). As the instructor, I offer feedback on the completed Japanese texts to ensure reasonable quality. Classmates comment on the products mutually, too.

 

For the remainder of the semester, students critically read and rewrite the English output from MT (post-editing.) Students revise MT’s English after checking if it expresses their intentions accurately, if the grammar (especially articles, singular/plural, pronouns, and tense) is consistent, and if some stylistic improvement is necessary.

 

In one class, students' essay topics changed noticeably after the introduction of MT. Topics included intellectual ones such as "Time from the Viewpoint of the Special and General Theory of Relativity," "Free-Will as a Fictional Concept," "The Data Revolution in American Baseball," "The Reasons Behind Improved Performance in Track and Field," and "The Restraint of Emotional Expression in Haiku."

 

Later, I conducted a questionnaire in that class. In response to the prompt statement, "If I had had to write in English from the beginning instead of writing in Japanese first and then using MT, I probably would have chosen a simpler topic," 40% (6 students) answered, "Yes," and 33% (5 students) answered "Somewhat yes.

 

The quality of the Japanese essays in that class was remarkably high, in general. The post-editing goal for the last five weeks was to make the English translation match that high quality. Unfortunately, due to my lack of instructional competence, the final revision was not satisfactory. Improvement of teaching skills is necessary, considering that in the questionnaire, 73% (11 students) answered "yes" and 20% (3 students) answered "somewhat yes" to the prompt "I would like to use MT for various occasions in the future actively.

 

Although there are still issues to be addressed, I believe that the introduction of machine translation will increase the quality of writing instruction, such as academic essay writing of 1,000 English words or more.

 

 

Conclusion

 

I can summarize the above discussion in the following six points.

 

(1) AI allows learners to continue to think while writing drafts in their native language at their intellectual level, rather than in the active vocabulary of a foreign language, which vastly underrepresents their intelligence.

 

(2) AI increases opportunities in which learners can write about topics at a level appropriate to their intellectual interests. Those changes probably have a positive impact on learners' self-esteem.

 

(3) The AI expresses what learners intended, albeit imperfectly, at their foreign language comprehension vocabulary level. In other words, those expressions offer learners an opportunity to think and write on a level far higher than their current level of active vocabulary.

 

(4) If the English output of the AI is beyond learners' comprehension, learners cannot benefit from the AI's English. However, if their vocabulary level is adequate for understanding the output, learners can discover that many specific expressions that the AI presents can become part of their productive capacity. AI’s English becomes a unique learning material for reading and writing.

 

(5) If the students learn to read the English output of the AI critically and can revise AI’s English from their critical assessment, they will gain an in-depth understanding of their comprehension vocabulary. In addition, they will learn ways to apply their comprehension vocabulary to express their ideas. Their English writing skills will increase simultaneously with their reading abilities.

 

(6) In summary, writing-assistant AI enables learners to think and express themselves using their passive vocabulary instead of their active vocabulary in the target language (English). It also promotes the transformation of words for understanding into words for expression.

 

For these reasons, I believe that instructors can wisely introduce AI in writing classes where learners need to express their complex thoughts in a long essay precisely. AI can benefit learners both in terms of their use of English and their English learning. However, learners need critical reading literacy to understand English that expresses topics at their intellectual level.

 

 

Lastly,

 

I wrote this essay rather impulsively, inspired by a conversation I had yesterday with my colleagues. Since my mind was not sufficiently organized for the topic, I had to draft fast, scan I, and rewrite to think coherently. Therefore, my language choice was my native language Japanese, my best thinking tool. It took about an hour and a half to complete the Japanese version.

 

I input my Japanese text into DeepL, copied its English output into Grammarly, and revised the English on the Grammarly screen. When the expression seemed dull, I explored the possibility of rewriting it in Wordtune. I used DeepL again for translating my revised English into Japanese to check if it might contain ambiguous expressions. I rewrote this way because I wanted to share my thoughts with my native English-speaking colleagues in the best way I can. It took about two hours and a half to produce the English translation.

 

Without AI, I would have given up on English translation because it would have taken too much time. Also, if I had written this essay in English initially, my thoughts would have been more confused than they are now, and my expression would have been much weaker. However, AI empowered me to express my thoughts fast and communicate them to my colleagues in English. During the revision process, I also learned more about English expression.

 

From experiences in my classrooms and workplace, I believe that AI can effectively promote students' use and learning of English. AI can empower students and make them more autonomous.

 

Of course, one can use any tool foolishly.