We need to get beyond entrenched thinking. We need to see that we are at a threshold of change in many of the ways that we work, write, study, research etc. Large language models as a key development in AI (with ChatGPT as a symbolic shorthand for that) have led to some pretty extreme pronouncements. Many see it as an existential threat, heralding the ‘death of the essay’ for example. These narratives, though, are unhelpful as they oversimplify a complex issue and mask long-standing, evidence-informed calls for change in educational assessment practices (and wider pedagogic practices). The ‘death of the essay’ narratives do though give us an opportunity to interrogate the thinking and (mis)understandings that underpin these discourses and tensions. We have a chance to challenge tacit assumptions about the value and purpose of essays as one aspect of educational practice that has been considered an immutable part of the ways learning and the evaluation of that learning happens. We are at a point where it is not just people like me (teacher trainers; instructional designers; academic developers; enthusiastic tech fiddlers; contrarians; compassionate & critical pedagogues; disability advocates etc.) that are voicing concerns about conventional practices. My view is that we leverage the heck out of this opportunity and find ways to effect change that is meaningful, scalable, responsive and coherent.

So it was that in a conversation over coffee (in my favourite coffee shop in the Strand area)  on these things with Claire Gordon (Director of the Eden Centre at LSE) that we decided to use the essay as a stimulus for a synthesis of thinking and to evolve a Manifesto for the essay (and other long form writing) in the age of AI.  To explore these ideas further, we invited colleagues from King’s College London and the London School of Economics (as well as special guests from Richmond American University and the University of Sydney) to a workshop. We explored questions like:

• What are the core issues and concerns surrounding essays in the age of AI?
• What alternatives might we consider in our quest for validity, reliability and authenticity?
• Why do some educators and students love the essay format, and why do others not?
• What is the future of writing? What gains can we harness, especially in terms of equity and inclusion?
• How might we conceptualise human/hybrid writing processes?

A morning of sharing research, discussion, debate and reflection enabled us to draft and subsequently hone and fine tune a collection of provocations which we have called a ‘Manifesto for the Essay in the age of AI’

I invite you to read our full manifesto and the accompanying blog post outlining our workshop discussions. As we navigate this period of significant change in higher education, it’s crucial that we engage in open, critical dialogue about the future of assessment.

What are your thoughts on the role of essays in the age of AI? Or, indeed, how assessment and teaching will change shape over the next few years? I welcome your comments and reflections below.