Trend of students relying on technology to write for them has hidden costs
ONE of the most frequent questions asked by students and parents today is a difficult one: What is the point of learning? In an era where artificial intelligence can generate complex proposals and essays on a whim, many wonder if the traditional learning process has become obsolete.
As educators, we are observing a worrying trend where students rely entirely on technology to do the writing for them.
READ MORE: English proficiency rankings don’t tell full story, says education expert
READ MORE: Why English streams alone won’t solve graduate unemployment
While a homework assignment can now be completed in mere minutes (thanks to AI), the hidden cost is the rapid erosion of critical skill sets.
When a student allows a machine to write their essays, they are not just skipping a task.
They are bypassing the cognitive weightlifting required to develop skills in elaboration, observation and problem solving.
For instance, the true purpose of a persuasive essay is to force a student to form an independent opinion and then defend it with evidence and real life examples.
However, when technology takes over, the focus shifts entirely to the synthetic perfection of the final product. Even when a student takes the initiative to write a draft, the temptation to let AI enhance the content is high because scoring an A has become the ultimate prize.
The result is a polished paper that masks a hollow understanding. This trend is becoming dangerously universal, creating a generation of graduates who look excellent on paper but struggle to think on their feet.
The “death” of writing skills inevitably leads to the “death” of speaking skills. In linguistics, we categorise both as productive skills.
Writing provides the luxury of time to sit down and organise thoughts. Speaking, however, happens in real time.
It is an immediate response that tests how a person can articulate thoughts to different demographics simultaneously.
If a student no longer knows how to elaborate in writing, we cannot expect them to be fluent or even decent speakers.
Without the practice of structured thought that writing provides, their ability to communicate clearly in person will wither.
Should students become comfortable with letting machines do the heavy lifting, they lose more than just their grades. They lose their own voice.
They no longer feel the need to memorise. They stop the vital habit of reading and researching because they trust the machine to sort out their thoughts for them.
We are approaching a crossroads where we must decide if education is about producing a perfect document or certificate or about building a capable human mind.
If we do not protect the process of learning, we risk raising a generation that can operate a machine but cannot think for themselves.
This does not mean that the use of AI should be discouraged entirely. It is impossible in this day and age to avoid exposure to AI, even if one is deliberate about it, and especially when even basic search engines have integrated these functions.
The goal is not to hide from the learning progress but to emphasise the concept of cognitive friction.
Learning is naturally a process of friction. A learner only grows when they struggle to find the right word or when they must rewrite an essay multiple times to make it make better sense.
This struggle helps the brain form new pathways of learning rather than simply accepting what pops up on a screen.
When a student uses AI to skip the research step, they remove this vital friction from their learning process. The outcome of learning only sticks when one works for it.
By relying on machines to structure their thoughts, students are essentially choosing to go on intellectual autopilot when they still need to learn how to walk. In our local culture, we have long prioritised grades over growth, sometimes even thinking both of these are the same.
Unfortunately, this ‘A’ obsession has created the perfect environment for the growth of the machine rather than of the learner.
A certificate might open the door to a career, but if the applicant does not have an independent mind, they will not be able to step through the door.
When these students eventually join the workforce, the mask of the polished essay vanishes as quickly as mist under the blazing sun.
Employers in Malaysia are increasingly reporting a disconnection between a candidate’s written credentials and their actual ability to communicate in a boardroom.
If a student never faces the struggle to structure a complex argument, they will not be able to utter a word when a manager or client asks an unexpected question during a meeting.
In a live professional setting, we cannot simply let our fingers fly across a keyboard and expect a machine to defend our ideas.
Ultimately, we must ensure our students remain the primary thinkers while using AI as a supportive tool for their own brilliance, instead of those who are merely led by it.
Yong Xin Jie is an English language lecturer at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, Universiti Malaya.
