Drafting defensively, documenting authorship: An analysis of Draftback and Grammarly Authorship

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Maggie Fernandes, Megan McIntyre
{"title":"Drafting defensively, documenting authorship: An analysis of Draftback and Grammarly Authorship","authors":"Maggie Fernandes,&nbsp;Megan McIntyre","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this piece, we offer critical interface analyses of two process surveillance interfaces, a term we use to describe personal writing tools that track students’ writing process via edits, revisions, and inserted text. Specifically, we examine: Draftback, a Google extension that predates ChatGPT-3, and Grammarly Authorship, a new beta feature for Grammarly users. Situated in scholarly conversations in digital cultural rhetorics, writing studies, surveillance studies, and user experience design, we analyze how these process surveillance interfaces reinscribe normative values for writing as product (rather than process) and facilitate feelings of suspicion, anxiety, and defensiveness for users. This analysis has implications both for instructors seeking to teach with tools like Draftback and Authorship to verify “responsible” GenAI use <em>and</em> instructors seeking to implement punitive anti-AI policies. Though Draftback and Grammarly Authorship are different kinds of process surveillance interfaces, they pose similar threats to writing process instruction when used for academic integrity purposes by either students or instructors. Namely, we find three issues associated with three process surveillance interfaces; namely, these tools promote 1) product over process; 2) normative constructions of embodiment and time; and 3) adversarial student-instructor dynamics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102926"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Composition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755461525000131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this piece, we offer critical interface analyses of two process surveillance interfaces, a term we use to describe personal writing tools that track students’ writing process via edits, revisions, and inserted text. Specifically, we examine: Draftback, a Google extension that predates ChatGPT-3, and Grammarly Authorship, a new beta feature for Grammarly users. Situated in scholarly conversations in digital cultural rhetorics, writing studies, surveillance studies, and user experience design, we analyze how these process surveillance interfaces reinscribe normative values for writing as product (rather than process) and facilitate feelings of suspicion, anxiety, and defensiveness for users. This analysis has implications both for instructors seeking to teach with tools like Draftback and Authorship to verify “responsible” GenAI use and instructors seeking to implement punitive anti-AI policies. Though Draftback and Grammarly Authorship are different kinds of process surveillance interfaces, they pose similar threats to writing process instruction when used for academic integrity purposes by either students or instructors. Namely, we find three issues associated with three process surveillance interfaces; namely, these tools promote 1) product over process; 2) normative constructions of embodiment and time; and 3) adversarial student-instructor dynamics.
防御性起草,记录作者身份:草稿和语法作者身份分析
在这篇文章中,我们提供了两个过程监控接口的关键接口分析,我们用这个术语来描述个人写作工具,通过编辑、修改和插入文本来跟踪学生的写作过程。具体来说,我们研究了:Draftback,一个早于ChatGPT-3的谷歌扩展,以及Grammarly Authorship,一个针对Grammarly用户的新测试版功能。在数字文化修辞学、写作研究、监控研究和用户体验设计的学术对话中,我们分析了这些过程监控界面如何将写作作为产品(而不是过程)的规范价值重新定义,并促进了用户的怀疑、焦虑和防御感。这一分析对寻求使用Draftback和Authorship等工具来验证“负责任的”GenAI使用的教师和寻求实施惩罚性反ai政策的教师都有影响。尽管Draftback和Grammarly Authorship是不同类型的过程监视接口,但当学生或教师出于学术完整性的目的使用它们时,它们对编写过程指导构成了类似的威胁。也就是说,我们发现了与三个过程监视接口相关的三个问题;也就是说,这些工具促进1)产品高于过程;2)体现与时间的规范性建构;3)敌对的学生-教师动态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Computers and Composition
Computers and Composition Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
25 days
期刊介绍: Computers and Composition: An International Journal is devoted to exploring the use of computers in writing classes, writing programs, and writing research. It provides a forum for discussing issues connected with writing and computer use. It also offers information about integrating computers into writing programs on the basis of sound theoretical and pedagogical decisions, and empirical evidence. It welcomes articles, reviews, and letters to the Editors that may be of interest to readers, including descriptions of computer-aided writing and/or reading instruction, discussions of topics related to computer use of software development; explorations of controversial ethical, legal, or social issues related to the use of computers in writing programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信