Well…this is scary good in some ways 😉 Claude is particularly useful in suggesting research approaches and potential sources - but I’m struck by how much “pre” setup you do to direct the bot. It’s a good demonstration of the effort involved in essay and nonfiction writing - but when I think of my adult students, I already see them tuning out because the pre-setup is so wordy and requires a clear analysis from the get-go. Yes, students need to learn this process, but I can see them thinking why not spend my time writing instead of analyzing? Do I really have to tell the bot all that stuff, *then* answer a bunch of prompts? And what if I mean to write more personally? Doesn’t all this up-front analysis undercut the emotion? Cart before the horse?
I think I know what you are getting at. This isn’t a broad prompt for essay or nonfiction writing. It’s for history. Yes, this prompt is designed to get a writer thinking about the shape of a writing project producing historical texts in an academic sense. Many adults have never had that experience yet have an intense interest in an era, an event, or a figure. A prompt can be designed to support an individual writer in thinking through an idea for a memoir, for example, but this isn’t it. I’m working on one that can support a writer in learning to write sonnets, a form I learned to write my sophomore year in high school. I would not want to start teaching a class day one and ask students to use such prompts. At some point I think having a whole bunch of think-throughs done in 40-45 minutes could be good brain oil. They are fun!! Try it! I have several more designed for high school writers.
Agree, and I have done some testing like this. I’m currently interested in working up some exercises to use with journalism students - but in part that’s to highlight what a bot can’t do: use direct reporting appropriately or in context. I’d like to think through a pre-writing prompts for personal nonfiction, and I’d be open to trying it, but I hypothesize that a logic tree of questions would undercut the emotional thing that sparks genuine self-expression. It’s why I think writing
These prompts would have to be carefully sequenced in a curriculum with appropriate teacher instruction on what they are, how they work, and what the student should take away from it. It’s not automated learning
(cont) process prep needs to start with a human getting down whatever they feel, a whole mess of words that’s not logical, before they can winnow things down to the thing they really care about saying. But as I say, this is a hypothesis that could be tested 😉
First, I would say give yourself 30 minutes, cut and paste the prompt into Claude if you have it, people tell me it works in Chat GPT. This is not the bot telling people what to think. It is the bot using “intuition” (not so much strict logic) in order to push the users thinking. It isn’t to inform them about this great idea. I did not understand this potential of a bot until a few weeks ago. This isn’t generative, it’s probative. Btw, I agree with you about free writing. Also, in my mind it’s pretty easy to show students the bot can’t write everything for them. Give them five minutes to write a letter to a dear, close friend. Then have them ask the bot to write a letter to their dear close friend. It’s not that hard to understand. But the bot can simulate a mentor with some high-quality training context to work with. It won’t ask the same questions twice, and it will write new questions if needed. It takes in the writer’s thoughts and then becomes a mechanical thought partner, operating on the fumes and echoes of your words filtered through sentiment analysis and syntactic coherence. It is amazing!!!!! Five years from now this will change the numbers on writing competence evaluations if it is implemented by people who know how to reach writing across the universe of discourse. It will help regular classroom writing teachers and give them room to breathe. It will invigorate students and help them show themselves they can think and write and use their voice. It’s a win-win.
I will try it, Terry 😉 I see the potential, but I have some big questions about how involved the whole opening is and whether it really sparks students creatively and emotionally. My initial take is it seems too complicated as a text-based process - the benefit comes in front-loading Claude, but the prompts and responses are overly wordy. I’ll say more by DM or email once I’ve given it a spin.
You don’t need to physically read the prompt. Yes. It is horrible to read. All you need to do is copy the text from the beginning to the end and paste it into the bot. Press return and the Mentor will prompt you.
There is a reversal in progress. Normally, you prompt the bot. You ask a question or command it to write a paper. Here, the bot prompts you. You have to think about what you want to do and how you can do it. In this situation you can’t avoid it. That may create some discomfort if you’re not used to global planning. But you quickly acclimate. I have that problem when I flip between writing poetry and writing persuasive essays
Well…this is scary good in some ways 😉 Claude is particularly useful in suggesting research approaches and potential sources - but I’m struck by how much “pre” setup you do to direct the bot. It’s a good demonstration of the effort involved in essay and nonfiction writing - but when I think of my adult students, I already see them tuning out because the pre-setup is so wordy and requires a clear analysis from the get-go. Yes, students need to learn this process, but I can see them thinking why not spend my time writing instead of analyzing? Do I really have to tell the bot all that stuff, *then* answer a bunch of prompts? And what if I mean to write more personally? Doesn’t all this up-front analysis undercut the emotion? Cart before the horse?
I think I know what you are getting at. This isn’t a broad prompt for essay or nonfiction writing. It’s for history. Yes, this prompt is designed to get a writer thinking about the shape of a writing project producing historical texts in an academic sense. Many adults have never had that experience yet have an intense interest in an era, an event, or a figure. A prompt can be designed to support an individual writer in thinking through an idea for a memoir, for example, but this isn’t it. I’m working on one that can support a writer in learning to write sonnets, a form I learned to write my sophomore year in high school. I would not want to start teaching a class day one and ask students to use such prompts. At some point I think having a whole bunch of think-throughs done in 40-45 minutes could be good brain oil. They are fun!! Try it! I have several more designed for high school writers.
Agree, and I have done some testing like this. I’m currently interested in working up some exercises to use with journalism students - but in part that’s to highlight what a bot can’t do: use direct reporting appropriately or in context. I’d like to think through a pre-writing prompts for personal nonfiction, and I’d be open to trying it, but I hypothesize that a logic tree of questions would undercut the emotional thing that sparks genuine self-expression. It’s why I think writing
These prompts would have to be carefully sequenced in a curriculum with appropriate teacher instruction on what they are, how they work, and what the student should take away from it. It’s not automated learning
(cont) process prep needs to start with a human getting down whatever they feel, a whole mess of words that’s not logical, before they can winnow things down to the thing they really care about saying. But as I say, this is a hypothesis that could be tested 😉
First, I would say give yourself 30 minutes, cut and paste the prompt into Claude if you have it, people tell me it works in Chat GPT. This is not the bot telling people what to think. It is the bot using “intuition” (not so much strict logic) in order to push the users thinking. It isn’t to inform them about this great idea. I did not understand this potential of a bot until a few weeks ago. This isn’t generative, it’s probative. Btw, I agree with you about free writing. Also, in my mind it’s pretty easy to show students the bot can’t write everything for them. Give them five minutes to write a letter to a dear, close friend. Then have them ask the bot to write a letter to their dear close friend. It’s not that hard to understand. But the bot can simulate a mentor with some high-quality training context to work with. It won’t ask the same questions twice, and it will write new questions if needed. It takes in the writer’s thoughts and then becomes a mechanical thought partner, operating on the fumes and echoes of your words filtered through sentiment analysis and syntactic coherence. It is amazing!!!!! Five years from now this will change the numbers on writing competence evaluations if it is implemented by people who know how to reach writing across the universe of discourse. It will help regular classroom writing teachers and give them room to breathe. It will invigorate students and help them show themselves they can think and write and use their voice. It’s a win-win.
I will try it, Terry 😉 I see the potential, but I have some big questions about how involved the whole opening is and whether it really sparks students creatively and emotionally. My initial take is it seems too complicated as a text-based process - the benefit comes in front-loading Claude, but the prompts and responses are overly wordy. I’ll say more by DM or email once I’ve given it a spin.
You don’t need to physically read the prompt. Yes. It is horrible to read. All you need to do is copy the text from the beginning to the end and paste it into the bot. Press return and the Mentor will prompt you.
There is a reversal in progress. Normally, you prompt the bot. You ask a question or command it to write a paper. Here, the bot prompts you. You have to think about what you want to do and how you can do it. In this situation you can’t avoid it. That may create some discomfort if you’re not used to global planning. But you quickly acclimate. I have that problem when I flip between writing poetry and writing persuasive essays
Did you try it?