My Response to ELA Teacher Jen Roberts’ Edutopia Article on AI Feedback Tools

It Seems She Chose Caution Over Candor

I have long admired the blog posts of high school English teacher Jen Roberts. In fact, as the lead member of California’s Better Together Teacher-Teacher Advisor Committee, I tried to encourage Sir Ken Robinson, the 2018 California Teacher Summit keynote speaker, to follow her on Twitter. I even suggested he spotlight teacher-leaders like Roberts — those who, like him, work tirelessly to bring about the radical shifts in education he often championed.

That said, I take issue with Roberts’ October 30, 2024, post on Edutopia: “Using AI Tools to Give Feedback on High School Writing.” While it contributes to the broader conversation about AI in education, it falls short in several critical ways:

1. The Post Buries and Underdevelops Its Most Important Point

The most important takeaway of Roberts’ post is relegated to the second-to-last paragraph and reduced to a single sentence:

“I am finding that giving my students access to immediate AI feedback is making a difference in their writing, as well as their engagement with the writing process.”

Why this wasn’t the headline and starting point of the article of the article baffles me. Teachers need to know upfront that AI tools are not just promising — they are already revolutionizing how students write, revise, and engage with their work in many classrooms. Instead, Roberts buries this transformative insight and fails to develop it fully.

I also am wondering why she didn’t expand on these two critical claims — (1) that AI helps students write better, and (2) that it keeps them engaged?

• For the first claim, Roberts could and should have explored the extent to which students improve, how quickly they progress, and how transformative AI can be in the classroom. As a social studies teacher, I’ve certainly seen firsthand that students learn more, better, and faster when using AI tools — largely because I can provide them with endless repetitions that I don’t have to grade myself. Afteral isn’t the key to success, as all athlete knows, repeated practice with a coach standing by to assess and guide improvement. AI tools allow teachers to fill that role without being overwhelmed by grading.
• As for the second claim, Roberts barely touches on engagement, which is one of the most profound impacts of AI tools. This is despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of teachers I know will say that when their students use AI to create written work and receive instant feedback, they stay engaged in a way that’s remarkable to witness. They don’t just write to check off an assignment — they write to improve, knowing they’ll immediately see how their changes affect the outcome. This shift in student motivation is extraordinary, and it deserved far more attention than a passing mention.

By failing to lead with or develop these crucial insights, Roberts’ post diminishes its overall impact and misses a vital opportunity to inspire educators to explore what AI tools can truly do.

2. The Post Focuses Too Narrowly on Two Tools

Roberts spends a significant portion of the post describing two specific tools: Brisk and Magic School. While these platforms are certainly popular, they represent only a small fraction of what’s available. By focusing solely on Brisk and Magic School, the post not only leaves educators with an incomplete picture of the broader ‘AI Feedback Tools’ landscape but also raises questions about Roberts's motives. Why only these tools and not the others.

At the very least, Roberts could have included a link to a resource listing additional tools or created a table using AI — an easy and accessible task with today’s technology.

That said, I’m at a complete loss to understand why she didn’t mention the widely-used Class Companion. This tool is utilized by thousands of high school teachers across a variety of subjects, including AP history, world history, African American history, and European History. Also, US government, ELA, biology, environmental science, computer science, and world languages. Its omission leaves a noticeable gap in the discussion

3. The Post Discusses Limitations Too Early

Before even mentioning that AI helps students write better and stay engaged, Roberts dives into its limitations. She notes that AI struggles with issues like plot inconsistencies and large-scale organizational suggestions. While these are valid points, placing them at the start of her “My Assessment” section surely discourages teachers who might otherwise be open to exploring these tools.

What’s more, Roberts fails to mention that many quality AI platforms already include features like student dispute options and teacher overrides. These functionalities address inaccuracies and ensure students receive accurate feedback. Omitting these details perpetuates the impression that AI tools can’t reliably assess writing, which isn’t true and only further diminishes the value of the post.

4. The Post’s Peer Review Argument Feels Outdated

Roberts concludes her post with a nod to peer review, stating, “We still do peer review.” Seriously? Why would she close out like that? Peer review is widely disliked by students, often dismissed as busywork, and in the age of AI, it’s at best likely to become a niche practice.

Why a niche practice? Because while there are specific contexts where peer feedback might still offer value — such as fostering collaboration or providing insights in creative projects — these situations will surely prove the exception, not the rule, as we move further into the Age of AI. For most writing tasks, then, AI feedback tools will be viewed as offering far greater advantages, if only because they provide instant, detailed, and objective responses that engage students in ways peer review rarely does.

I’m sure Roberts knows this, so why close out the article by highlighting peer review? Was it to avoid challenging traditionalists or to stay in the good graces of those resistant to change? Whatever the reason, it feel like she missed a golden opportunity to fully embrace and advocate for the future of AI in education.

5. The Post Misses a Key Opportunity to Address Upcoming Advances

Published in October, the post fails to mention the widely publicized, planned launches of two groundbreaking AI tools: OpenAI’s ChatGPT Pro and Google’s Gemini. These next-generation platforms will surely improve, and dramatically at that, AI’s ability to assess student writing with greater accuracy and depth.

By omitting this crucial context, the post feels disconnected from the rapidly evolving AI landscape. It misses an important opportunity to prepare teachers for the transformative potential these tools are poised to bring to classrooms and education as a whole.

Final Thoughts

Jen Roberts is a talented writer and a respected voice in education, but her post failed to clearly and prominently present high school teachers — and especially English teachers — with several unvarnished truths:

• Students are learning to write better and more effectively with AI.
• Students find AI-driven assignments engaging, often far more so than traditional methods.
• Accuracy issues in current tools are being addressed rapidly, with next-generation AI poised to resolve these challenges.
• In the age of AI, all teachers — including English teachers — will need to adapt. Teaching methods will change, students will learn differently, and assessments will evolve to reflect this new reality.

Bottom line, it’s time for educators to embrace these shifts, not as a burden, but as an opportunity to revolutionize how we teach, learn, and assess. Start small: explore free trials of AI tools, engage in professional development focused on AI in education, and join online communities where educators share strategies and successes.

The AI age is here, and it’s transforming education for the better. Teachers have the chance to lead this transformation and ensure it serves students’ best interests. The question is not if we’ll adapt, but how quickly and effectively we can rise to meet this moment.

Sidenote #1

I am a retired high school social studies teacher with nearly forty years of experience who frequently speaks and blogs about AI in education. I also serve as a consultant to Class Companion and am a member of the College Board’s AI in AP committee. Despite my role as a consultant, I prioritize honesty and transparency above all else.

This means I often speak openly about Class Companion’s strengths and areas for improvement, including its accuracy in scoring SAQs, LEQs, and DBQs. I regularly advocate for enhancements and openly discuss competitors, highlighting what each platform does well and where they fall short. In fact, I plan to publish a detailed comparison of these tools in the near future.

At my core, I remain a teacher who firmly believes that American education must — and will — improve in the AI age. For me, the choice is simple: when deciding between what’s best for students and what’s best for Class Companion, I always choose students. If you have any doubts, just ask the CEO of Class Companion — she’ll confirm it.

Sidenote #2

While Sir Ken’s health prevented him from fully responding to my encouragement to spotlight some of the state’s top educators, he did manage to follow and connect with a few of them. This speaks to the kind of esteem Roberts and others like her command.