Investigating the Affordances of AI for Writing Practices and Pedagogies

(text-style:"bold","underline")[Investigating the Affordances of AI for Writing Practices and Pedagogies ] An Interactive Collection of Research Stories By Dr Sam Holdstock [[Begin->Introduction]]

During the 2025-26 academic year, supported by a grant from the UKLA, I embarked upon a research project entitled ‘Investigating the Affordances of AI for Writing Practices and Pedagogies’. As part of this close-to-practice study, I worked with three secondary school English teachers based in the southeast of England, two from a school that I here refer to as The Sunshine School, and one from a school pseudonymised as Scott’s Grammar School. The Sunshine School is a mixed-gender, non-selective academy, whereas Scott’s Grammar School is a selective, single-gender school. I visited each of the three teachers (Mr Sadie and Ms Stokes at The Sunshine School, and Mr Stratton at Scott’s Grammar School). During each school visit, I observed a lesson in which GenAI participated. I also interviewed each teacher after the lesson and conducted focus groups with students who had attended. Using audio recordings of these lessons, interviews and focus groups, I composed a set of research stories. These stories are accounts of my encounters with the recorded data. They take a variety of forms; I used prose, poetry, found poetry and drama to compose them. Within the stories, pseudonyms are used to refer to the schools, teachers and students who are mentioned. In this interactive collection, I share my research stories with you. This interactive text provides you with different ways of connecting and exploring my written accounts. As you explore, you might think about how the different reading pathways available to you affect your understanding of AI and its affordances. Please note that I offer this text not as a means of criticising or advocating for practices, but in the hope that it will stimulate thought, reflection and professional development. This text should ''not'' be used as a guide to teaching with AI. [[Continue->Home]]

(set: $score to 0)Before we begin, a bit of housekeeping. This passage is your home page, your basecamp. At any moment during your exploration of this text, you can use the home button (⌂) located at the top left of your screen to return here, to this passage. You can also use the back button at the top right of each passage to return to the previous passage that you visited. Now, let’s [[explore]]!

(set: $score to 0)''How would you like to explore this interactive collection?'' * (link: "Show me three stories that relate to a school visit of my choosing.")[(set: $navigate to "visit")(goto: "visit")] * (link: "Show me a curated trio of research stories.")[(set: $navigate to "curated")(goto: "curated")] * (link: "Show me a random trio of research stories.")[(set: $score to 1)(set: $navigate to "random")(set: $remainder to $AllStories)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)] * (link: "Let me choose three stories to read, based on their titles.")[(set: $navigate to "title")(goto: "titles")]

''Which school visit would you like to focus on?'' * (link: "Visit 1: Mr Sadie at The Sunshine School (March 2026)")[(set: $navigate to "visit1")(goto: "Visit 1")] * (link: "Visit 2: Ms Stokes at The Sunshine School (March 2026)")[(set: $navigate to "visit2")(goto: "Visit 2")] * (link: "Visit 3: Mr Stratton at Scott’s Grammar School (April 2026)")[(set: $navigate to "visit3")(goto: "Visit 3")]

''I have curated groups of research stories based upon topics that connect them. Select a topic from the list below to read three random research stories from that curated group:'' * (link: "Human Collaboration and Relationships")[(set: $score to 1)(set: $Group to $HumanCollab)(set: $remainder to $Group)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)] * (link: "Collaborating with AI")[(set: $score to 1)(set: $Group to $AICollab)(set: $remainder to $Group)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)] * (link: "Quality of Attention")[(set: $score to 1)(set: $Group to $Attention)(set: $remainder to $Group)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)] * (link: "Marking, Assessment & Feedback")[(set: $score to 1)(set: $Group to $Feedback)(set: $remainder to $Group)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)] * (link: "Student Responses to AI")[(set: $score to 1)(set: $Group to $StudentResponse)(set: $remainder to $Group)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)] * (link: "Research Stories: Prose")[(set: $score to 1)(set: $Group to $Prose)(set: $remainder to $Group)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)] * (link: "Research Stories: Poetry")[(set: $score to 1)(set: $Group to $Poetry)(set: $remainder to $Group)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)] * (link: "Comparing GenAI with Humans")[(set: $score to 1)(set: $Group to $Compare)(set: $remainder to $Group)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)]

''Select which research stories you would like to read, based on their titles. Note that the titles have been arranged in alphabetical order.'' * (link: "A Living Contradiction")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S6")] * (link: "A Sales Pitch")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S4")] * (link: "A Taser in the Classroom")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S10")] * (link: "A Text Deserves an Audience")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S3")] * (link: "After School")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S8")] * (link: "Beyond Language")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S13")] * (link: "Bothering")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S15")] * (link: "Chloe: A Character Profile")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S1")] * (link: "Developing a Script")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S16")] * (link: "Developing a Sonnet")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S17")] * (link: "Distress")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S21")] * (link: "Ease and Dissatisfaction")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S9")] * (link: "Embodied, Localised, Human Attention")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S20")] * (link: "Give")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S7")] * (link: "Great and Invisible Ghosts")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S19")] * (link: "I’ll Take Anything")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S2")] * (link: "Language Paper One")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S12")] * (link: "Mothering")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S14")] * (link: "No Time to AI")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S18")] * (link: "The Formatting of Feedback")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S5")] * (link: "The Line Outside")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S11")]

//This passage offers a character profile of ‘Chloe’, the AI engine that is integrated into a comparative judgment platform called// No More Marking. //‘Chloe’ can conduct comparative judgment and generate feedback. Printed feedback from Chloe was shared with students during the year 11 lesson that Mr Sadie taught during my visit.// (text-style:"underline")[''Chloe: A Character Profile''] ''Gender'': Chloe felt very present during the year 11 lesson that I observed during my visit to The Sunshine School, but I never actually saw her. In fact, perhaps ‘her’ is not quite the right pronoun to use, for Chloe is simply the name given to the AI assessment engine that teachers can access via the No More Marking platform. Although I know it will sound awkward, I think I shall refer to Chloe as ‘it’ from here on out, as I am concerned that gendering ~~her~~ it as female will affect how I think about its character. ''Appearance'': Chloe touches many parts of the lesson. Feedback generated by it can be found on printed pieces of paper inside students’ books. Its name is mentioned multiple times during the lesson by both the students and by Mr Sadie. For a significant portion of the lesson, students are asked to reflect and act upon Chloe’s evaluation of their non-fiction writing. Chloe seems to favour the colour purple (would I even write that sentence if Chloe was named Charles? Or Steve?). Mr Sadie observes that the format of the feedback Chloe provides has changed since the last time it was used: ‘The format has slightly changed since the last time we used the AI feedback. It seems to have gone shorter in form, and they’ve also added that sort of mauve, purple, pink colour.’ ''Relationship status'': I cannot entirely separate Chloe from Mr Sadie, but I also cannot see them as a united team. For example, Mr Sadie introduced Chloe’s written feedback by saying that ‘Chloe has given you feedback that comes from the algorithm. It’s based on the success criteria I put in, and it’s thought about the quality of your work. It’s read it, it’s understood, or it’s been able to identify it, and it’s given you feedback based on your use of words, your punctuation, your clarity of organisation.’ So, it appears that Chloe reads, understands, and generates feedback using an algorithm and the success criteria that Mr Sadie has provided. However, later in the lesson, after he has noticed ‘a bit of a theme’ emerging from students’ contributions to the lesson, Mr Sadie recognises that Chloe might not understand the students’ writing as well as was initially suggested. Some students feel they have already done the things that Chloe suggests could be improved upon, and Mr Sadie even invites students to ‘challenge the feedback that Chloe has given us.’ ''Popularity'': Chloe’s social status in the room is certainly not strongly established. Early in the lesson, a student carelessly calls out, ‘What’s her name? Chloe?’ I feel a touch of disdain in this question, and as the lesson unfolds, the students dislike of Chloe’s feedback becomes increasingly apparent. ''Affiliation'': However, Chloe is not totally alone. Chloe is positioned by Mr Sadie as just one of several different sources of ‘feedback’. During the lesson, he asks students to tell him which sources they have used to generate writing reflections and targets. He asks, ‘Was it a prompt from the AI feedback, from Chloe? Was it from your own thinking? Was it from yesterday’s lesson? Was it from a discussion with a partner?’ Later on, he explains to an individual student that he hasn’t ‘got time to mark every single piece of writing that students produce’, and that he therefore uses a range of feedback strategies. Chloe is a constituent part of this range. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//This passage takes the form of a rant. It is a found poem, and it is composed of scraps and fragments of recorded speech that were audible in the recording of the year 11 lesson that I observed during my visit to Mr Sadie and his students at The Sunshine School. As the microphone was located at the rear of the room, most of these utterances were voiced by the students sat in the back row. One student was especially vocal and audible in their criticism of the AI-generated feedback.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[I’ll Take Anything] It’s not relevant, I don’t care. I don’t like AI generated feedback, it’s not accurate. IT CAN’T EVEN READ! Starting sentences with capital letters? I //think// I know how to bloody do that, thank you very much! This isn’t gonna help me improve my GCSEs, it’s just told me to do stuff I learned in year R! It’s told everyone exactly the same thing, so how is it personalised at all? It says, ‘use formal words that fit the magazine style better.’ I’m not writing a magazine! Don’t give me AI. Just because teachers can’t be arsed to mark. Literally every teacher has started to use AI now – There’s AI posters around the school! I’ll take anything, as long as they’re not AI. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//This passage contains a found poem that emerged from my interview with Mr Sadie. During our interview, Mr Sadie told me of one year thirteen student who had been sharing their own poetry with him.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[A Text Deserves an Audience] There’s a student writing poetry inspired by songs; She wanted me to read it – that’s it. She doesn’t want feedback. She just wants to be read. Then I suggest another song. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//In this passage, drawing upon my interview with Mr Sadie, I construct an imagined ‘sales pitch’. As head of English, Mr Sadie devised an AI-enhanced assessment schedule for year eleven students who were preparing for their English GCSE exams. I here imagine the moment when he introduced this assessment schedule to his colleagues and sought to generate buy-in from them. The need to ‘sell’ the idea of using AI to support with assessment and feedback, and the affiliated need to generate buy-in from both students and teachers, was something that we discussed extensively during our interview. In this passage, I synthesise my understanding of ideas that Mr Sadie shared with me, even using some of his language. However, I do not attempt to accurately or consistently emulate his voice, tone or phrasing.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[A Sales Pitch] So, as you can see in the schedule I have shared with you, students will be doing some additional written assessments during English lessons in between their big mock exams. However, don’t be alarmed – I have devised this schedule in a way that will, I believe, benefit you, benefit me, and benefit our students. Instead of us all doing //different// in-lesson formative assessment tasks throughout the year, we will all set the same questions, allowing us to develop complete and additional data sets for the cohort. As we have done previously, we will assess these in-lesson assessments using comparative judgment. Fortunately, the No More Marking platform enables us to use AI to support with the process of comparative judgment. In fact, as you can see here, we will get the AI (Chloe) to do 90% of the comparative judgment work for us! Chloe will also generate written, personalised feedback for each student that we can (if we so choose) share with them. Why are we doing this? Well, there are three reasons: wellbeing, practice and data. Firstly, wellbeing and workload. By using No More Marking’s AI capabilities to assess the students’ writing, we are reducing the amount of time that each of us must spend marking students’ work by hand. We all know how hard it can be to keep up with marking when you have a year 11 group. This AI-enhanced schedule will help us to keep our heads above water when it comes to marking. Secondly, practice. By doing these additional assessments between the big set-piece mock exams, we are providing our students with additional opportunities to practice the extended writing skills they will need for their GCSE exams. For example, instead of students just kicking their heels in December while we focus on mock exam marking, we can provide additional assessment tasks, getting students to work a little harder and to engage in some more extended writing. The AI enables us to provide feedback as well, making these opportunities more meaningful for the students. As you can see, it also means that we can space out the opportunities for practice that we are offering. For example, after the mock exams in November, students don’t actually have another chance to attempt English Language, paper 2, question 5 again in a mock exam. Therefore, the additional in-lesson assessment in February gives them a well-structured chance to practice this form of writing again, and to receive feedback. Finally, data. This schedule gets us all doing the same in-lesson assessment tasks between the mocks, meaning we will generate complete data sets between our mock exams that can paint a clearer and more nuanced picture of how our students are progressing. This will certainly help us offer better support to our students. Now, I know that students can be a little prejudiced against AI and the feedback that it is able to offer to students, and they might feel that we are being lazy by getting Chloe (the AI engine) to mark work and offer feedback, so it’s really important that we all buy into this schedule and recognise the opportunities and benefits that it offers. We can explain the benefits that I have just outlined. We can also stress to students that only //some// marking and feedback is being driven by the AI, and that we offer them a suite of other feedback opportunities, including the written mock exams that we mark and the ongoing and regular book marking that we do. So, in sum, this schedule should support us to manage workload, offer opportunities for meaningful practice, and generate some useful data. If students push back, we can stress the benefits of this programme and the range of assessment methods we are using to support them. Any questions? {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//Having reviewed the recording of my interview with Mr Sadie, I here explore the form, structure and style of the written, AI-generated feedback that Mr Sadie shared with his students during the lesson I observed. I provide an account of the discussion we had regarding the differences between AI-generated and teacher-generated feedback, structuring my own writing in a manner that is similar to the style and format of the feedback that Mr Sadie printed and shared with his students. For this reason, I write in the second person. However, AI played no role in the writing of this passage, and my stylistic choices are derived from my recorded discussion with Mr Sadie//. (text-style:"bold","underline")[The Formatting of Feedback] ''Style and Format'' During your interview with Mr Sadie, you successfully discussed the style and format of the feedback that Chloe generated. Well done for noticing that the feedback was presented in a standardised format: each printed page contained the same three headings along with three paragraphs of writing. Mr Sadie observed that this format could make the feedback feel formulaic and performative. Watch out for the fact that this format requires students to read the feedback and then go back to their own work to locate the relevant section. You did well to notice some of the stylistic features of the feedback – the use of imperatives and a personal but directive tone. To Mr Sadie, this tone felt less formal than the language of a mark scheme. Remember that Chloe (the AI engine) generated a quantity of feedback that exceeded the quantity Mr Sadie might typically write, and that it also appeared to emphasise the positive aspects of students’ work more extensively. Great work! ''Comparing Feedback '' In this discussion, you and Mr Sadie did a great job comparing different forms of feedback. Mr Sadie correctly observed that Chloe’s feedback might be more clearly presented than the handwritten annotations that he showed you in students’ books. Remember to think more about the examples that Mr Sadie shared with you. He showed you a piece of work in which he had provided feedback through his annotations. In one book, he had circled the phrase “to the reader” and written “Expand: directing at Victorian wealthy?” You could have remarked that this is stylistically different to the AI-generated feedback because it is not written in prose. Well done for discussing the fact that these handwritten annotations are integrated into the text, written in red ink in the margins and between paragraphs. For Mr Sadie, this made the feedback feel more relevant, human and targeted than the AI-generated prose. Watch out for another key difference that Mr Sadie observed: his own annotations were often questions that invited further thought, something that you did not find in the AI-generated feedback. Remember to reflect also upon the significance of Mr Sadie’s relationships with his students. He said that, as a human, he can understand what students are getting at in their writing and encourage them to take specific ideas further as a consequence. ''The Implementation of Feedback'' You successfully discussed Mr Sadie’s implementation of AI-generated feedback in this interview. Great job! Remember how Mr Sadie described a previous interaction with a student; he read their AI-generated feedback, highlighting and discussing the sections he agreed with. This made him feel that there were almost three voices in the conversation: himself, the student, and the AI (Chloe). Interestingly, he talked about the need he felt to validate and support the AI-generated feedback, guiding students to the most useful bits. Watch out for an important observation he made: the standardisation of the AI-generated feedback format can aid the smooth facilitation of a lesson. However, note that Chloe’s directive tone appeared to lend itself to a didactic approach to writing instruction and feedback. Don’t forget that this was the reason why Mr Sadie compared the AI-feedback to a satnav, and his handwritten feedback to a map. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//In this short, reflective account of my interview with Mr Sadie, I try to make sense of a living contradiction that I perceived to exist between his teaching practice and his educational values. // (text-style:"bold","underline")[A Living Contradiction] During my interview with Mr Sadie, we discuss a potential contradiction between his values and his professional practice. It is a conflict that Mr Sadie has not yet had sufficient time to interrogate, and the interview creates a little space for reflection. I remark that he has previously spoken to me of his desire to engage students in pleasurable and very human practices of reading and writing. During the interview, he states that ‘a text deserves an audience’, suggesting that students’ writing deserves to be read. However, during our interview, he also explains how he has had to actively promote to his students the benefits and advantages of AI as a non-human source of feedback. To me, this feels contradictory. There is a tension between the value placed upon writing as a human and interpersonal activity, and the process of writing for a non-human reader. Mr Sadie attempts to resolve this tension by acknowledging that English can mean different things at different times: There’s ‘English’, and there’s ‘Exam English.’ For Mr Sadie, AI can help teachers and students to ‘play the game’ of exam English. However, he acknowledges that writing a text for this game is ‘not the same as writing a piece that’s going to be enjoyed.’ When I probe Mr Sadie on this, asking whether ‘some texts might deserve an audience more than others’, he explains that, yes, ‘for those very personal pieces, where someone has taken the time to come and see you, that should be read.’ Upon reflection, I feel this raises some useful and important questions for teachers of writing. What are the texts that merit reading? How can we begin to make such value-judgments? What texts are we happy to allow AI to ‘read’? And what value should be placed on writing that is not actually intended for a human audience? Mr Sadie helps me to reflect further on the value of writing. During our interview, he turns to the shelf behind him and pulls out model essays that he has handwritten on lined paper for his students. He shows me some of his own handwritten school essays as well, texts that he has previously shared with A level students for discussion. He mentions that, when teaching creative writing he prefers to use ‘real texts’ such as Angela Carter’s short story, //The Werewolf//. These are all texts that have some personal and professional significance for Mr Sadie, and their significance stretches beyond any individual lesson, out into the writing lives of the authors and readers in question. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//This found poem derives from words shared by Sidney – one of two students who participated in a focus group during my visit to Mr Sadie and The Sunshine School. Sidney spoke about his feelings towards AI-generated feedback, comparing it to feedback that is provided by a teacher.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Give] AI just puts together sources; I don’t feel like I’m gaining, like someone’s taken time to give feedback that they’ve //felt//, on the spot. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//During the student focus group that I conducted while visiting Mr Sadie and his year 11 students at The Sunshine School, two students (Sidney and Sophie) spoke about how they and their peers have used GenAI. In this poem, written from the imagined perspective of GenAI, I draw these examples together in an attempt to make sense of the ways GenAI is affecting secondary school students’ writing practices.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[After School] //“I know our year group is obviously quite against it, but then, everyone still uses it.”// As Sidney’s train rolls homeward, he inquires, asking me questions about space. I flow my information into his carriage, out of his screen; whilst elsewhere a student is feeding me photos of her artwork, asking me to analyse, to offer annotations, the words the mark scheme seeks; whilst elsewhere a class of year 10 students haggle through their English homework, giving me a question, a few prompts. I respond, and they take to their group chat to discuss the words and sentences that they should change. They copy out my text into their books; some adding in mistakes – spelling errors, crossings out – just to appear human. Elsewhere, at Sophie’s house, when it is late, and she is getting tired, and just a few maths questions still remain, Sophie uploads an image; I blurt down the solution, some working, which she dutifully reads, so that she can say she is still learning. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//In this reflective account, I attempt to make sense of what two students (Sidney and Sophie) told me during the focus group that I facilitated when I visited Mr Sadie and his students at the Sunshine School. The passage focuses on the ways in which using GenAI makes them feel.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Ease and Dissatisfaction] After observing a lesson during which students voiced their dissatisfaction with the AI-generated feedback they were given, I became increasingly interested in students’ attitudes and feelings towards AI. Now, as I listen back to the recording of the focus group that I facilitated during my first visit to The Sunshine School, I recognise that the two students with whom I spoke voiced some nuanced feelings, and I become eager to do justice to these nuances. My eagerness derives from something that one student, Sidney, shared with me. Speaking of his misgivings about AI-generated feedback, Sidney stated that knowledgeable teachers ‘can see things that I’m trying to show’. In contrast, when GenAI is used to mark his work, ‘it looks for what’s there’. To me, this suggests that Sidney wants his good intentions and his ambitions to be recognised in a way that an AI assessment engine cannot quite achieve. Because it is marking the writing rather than participating in a more extended relationship with the writer, the feedback that GenAI can offer does not leave Sidney feeling //seen//. Sidney did not say that he wants to feel //seen//. However, in writing this account, I am trying to do more than AI might do. I am trying to see Sidney and to recognise what he was driving towards. Sidney and his classmate, Sophie, also share with me that using GenAI can produce a sense of ease. For example, Sidney mentions that using a tool like Google Gemini is ‘easier’ than ‘having to constantly use [the] google’ search engine. The AI chatbot can produce a smooth and seamless ‘flow of answers’ to the questions he provides, and he can access this flow very conveniently via his phone. However, despite the ease that GenAI can offer, Sophie highlighted a less positive aspect of her own AI-usage. Although she said that she didn’t feel particularly bad about using AI to support her with finding ‘one tick answer[s]’ to Maths and Science questions, she did say that using GenAI to support her with schoolwork made her feel like she was ‘cheating the system’. Similarly, Sidney said that using AI to write assignments for school made him feel that he was cheating himself, leaving him feeling ‘unaccomplished’. So, what were Sidney and Sophie driving towards? My understanding is that GenAI offers them a sense of easy dissatisfaction. Accessing information and text that feels relevant can be achieved swiftly, but (at least where schoolwork is concerned) using GenAI can leave them feeling unfulfilled. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//This poem was written as a response to my experience of observing and audio-recording Ms Stokes’ year 10 English lesson during my second visit to The Sunshine School in March 2026. Ms Stokes and one of her students (Rachel) are quoted, and the poem explores the influence that my presence as an observer had upon the visibility of GenAI within the lesson. During the lesson, students’ attention was not drawn towards the fact that AI had been used to help with resource preparation.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[A Taser in the Classroom] A student in the back row turns, surveys me and the Tascam that I borrowed for this project, leans in and whispers: ‘hello.’ ‘It looks like a taser,’ she says. ‘I’m scared of it.’ My nerves extend their voltage into the classroom; I know that she is joking, but consent is an anxious process; the student, Rachel, could withdraw, remove her ‘taser’ from my work, leaving just a field recorder. But Rachel and the taser stay, as does its threat of violence, the flavour of metallic power, and echoes of law enforcement. Cocksure on the laminate desk, the taser draws words from Ms Stokes that otherwise would live beneath her usual communion: ‘I can show you the instructions I used later on, as well.’ She didn’t use the assistant that the school permits. Instead, she used ChatGPT to make a text, questions, sentence starters, and instructions; a worksheet crafted for this class, and me. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//After observing a lesson in which an AI-generated reading comprehension text and an accompanying set of AI-generated questions were used to support a class of year 10 students to write about Shakespeare’s Macbeth, focusing particularly on Macbeth’s character development in act three, scene two, I interviewed Ms Stokes. During the interview, we discussed what the lesson might have looked like if Ms Stokes had not used Chat GPT when planning the lesson, and in this piece of reflective prose I explore how AI appears to be shaping Ms Stokes’ lessons.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[The Line Outside] As she prepared for her year 10 English lesson, Ms Stokes prompted ChatGPT to produce resources to which she and her students could respond. As different students had missed different lessons in recent weeks, she knew that there was a ‘range of [knowledge] gaps’ that she needed to address, and she wanted to produce resources that could help her and her students to address these gaps. She wanted to ensure that students were adequately prepared for an upcoming formative assessment, an assessment that would focus upon an extract from act three, scene two of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Her first prompt began as follows: ‘Create a comprehension reading text on act three scene two of Macbeth’. She went on to provide further guidance, instructing the chatbot to focus on particular themes, to include quotations from the play, and to use language that was ‘appropriate for a low-to-middle ability group of […] 14-year-old students’. Her conversation with ChatGPT continued, and Ms Stokes asked the chatbot to create ‘three levels of comprehension questions: Bronze, Silver and Gold.’ Later, she worked with ChatGPT to create ‘five recall questions’ that she could use as a ‘starter task’. During our interview, I asked Ms Stokes what she would have done if she hadn’t used ChatGPT in this way. Her responses focused my attention on the things that her interactions with the AI chatbot might effectively include and exclude from her lessons. I now imagine some of these artefacts and practices – things that ChatGPT excludes from Ms Stokes’ lessons. I picture them lined up outside Ms Stokes’ closed classroom door: * First in line is Mr Bruff, whose popular YouTube videos Ms Stokes has previously used to support students as they revisit texts or passages that they have already encountered. His avatar stands next to the classroom door, shrugging and smiling in its usual way. * Behind him stands a stack of revision guides, their corners weathered and fraying. Ms Stokes indicated to me that such texts might also have been used to support her planning, had she not been using ChatGPT. * Next to the revision guides, a stack of papers. On each page appears a text that Ms Stokes has written herself, a text designed to support students to consolidate their understanding of the play or to help them fill in any gaps in their knowledge of the plot. * Behind this stack of papers is Ms Stokes herself. She is sat at a desk, writing. During our interview she informed me that she ‘used to sit for hours and write’, producing model answers at different grade levels. Now, she often uses ChatGPT to support her with the creation of such texts. However, she stressed to me that ‘writing the model answers early on in [her] career’ now enables her to tell whether the model answers that GenAI produces are actually good model answers. * Emerging from Ms Stokes’ head, I imagine a speech bubble containing a set of ‘longer and more complex questions’ than those contained in the AI-generated worksheet. Ms Stokes suggested that, had she not been using AI to support her with her lesson resourcing, she might have produced more complex questions than those contained in the resource she created with ChatGPT. * Although Ms Stokes does not mention him, I also imagine Shakespeare himself standing beside Ms Stokes, leafing through a printed copy of Macbeth, a copy to which students did not appear to refer during the lesson that I observed. * Finally, at the back of the line, a whiteboard that has been covered with handwritten ‘bullet point notes’ leans against the wall. Ms Stokes informed me that, had she not used the reading comprehension text that she developed with ChatGPT, she might instead have used ‘lots and lots of questioning and bullet point notes or Cornell notes on the board’ to support students to collaboratively review their collective knowledge and understanding of the play. Alongside this lineup of the excluded and marginalised, I also picture the other side of the classroom door, focusing my attention on what ChatGPT manages to include in Ms Stokes’ lessons, things that might or might not otherwise be there: * Firstly, a scattering of small images. On the worksheet that Ms Stokes produced for the lesson that I observed were a range of emojis and icons that she ‘definitely wouldn’t have used’ if she was designing it without the aid of ChatGPT. * Next, a challenge task. Despite not having been explicitly asked to do so, ChatGPT included a ‘challenge task’ in the worksheet that it produced for Ms Stokes. Ms Stokes elected to include this task and inferred that ChatGPT added it having learned from their previous interactions and her frequent requests for the chatbot to add such tasks to her resources. * Also inside the classroom is Ms Stokes herself. She circulates the room, asking follow-up questions and supporting students as they think about the play and respond to the resources and tasks that she has created in collaboration with ChatGPT. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//During our interview, Ms Stokes and I discussed the limitations of GenAI, and she spoke about her students’ negative responses to AI-generated feedback. In this poem I attempt to distil and make sense of her words, focusing on one story that she told about a student who was disappointed with a grade that he received. The bulk of the poem is made up of Ms Stokes’ words – utterances that I have transcribed and arranged on the screen. However, to help me make sense of Ms Stokes’ words, I have edited her phrasing, adding and removing words, punctuation and line breaks to draw the text together. As such, in this short text, our words are entangled.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Language Paper One] He was disappointed with his mark; And my conversation with that pupil – A computer could not do it. Neither could I, if I didn’t read the work! They want to feel seen. They want to feel recognised. They want their hard work to be acknowledged! I don’t think you can replace that human interaction. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//In this piece of reflective prose, I compare remarks that Ms Stokes made during our interview with comments previously made by Mr Sadie during our previous and separate interview. I compare and reflect upon the ways in which AI is affecting each of their distinct and personal writing practices.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Beyond Language] I interviewed Ms Stokes after I had already interviewed Mr Sadie, and it was interesting to note that they both spoke to me of the ways in which AI was affecting their more personal and less pedagogical writing practices. Mr Sadie had used Google Gemini while he was writing a chapter for a book to which he had been invited to contribute. He conversed with the AI as he drafted his non-fiction text, bouncing ideas off Google Gemini and asking it to help map out the extended metaphors he was using to structure his work. At times he used it like a thesaurus, and at other times he asked the AI assistant for feedback on the readability of his work. He seemed to find it helpful. Ms Stokes’ writing relationship with AI felt much less positive. As a writer and performer of stand-up comedy, Ms Stokes had been underwhelmed by ChatGPT, concluding that ‘AI is terrible at either analysing, assessing or writing stand-up comedy’. She described having directed ChatGPT to analyse comedy sets that she had written, and she reported that it advised her not to say things that she knew to work very well. Ms Stokes felt that ChatGPT did not ‘understand how I perform it’, resulting in misinterpretations of her writing. This difference highlights something important for me. Comedy arguably depends more upon extralinguistic factors than does a chapter of prose. The bodily presence of comedians and their interactions with the audience shape the quality of the comedy. I felt that there was some similarity between Ms Stokes’ negative experience with ChatGPT and the negative attitudes of some Sunshine School students towards AI-generated feedback. In both cases, the writers involved did not feel as fully seen by the AI as they wanted or needed to be. It seems to me that these writers wanted to feel seen in a way that is rooted in the written word, but that also stretches well beyond the ink, the page and the screen into a human, interpersonal realm that AI was not able to reach. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//This short poem was written very quickly, and very soon after the focus group that I orchestrated with students from Ms Stokes’ year 10 English class during my second visit to The Sunshine School. In three stanzas, it imaginatively synthesises and presents three stories shared by three separate students. The poem was written based upon my memories of the focus group, and whilst I have reviewed the focus group recording to verify the stories, it does not reuse the exact wording of the students involved. To render the text more compelling and coherent, certain narrative gaps have been filled and sensory details added.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Mothering] Archie’s Mum sits him down at the kitchen table, takes his phone, puts it in the cutlery drawer, and says, 'Now do your homework.' Amy unwraps the card she bought for Mother’s Day, peels off the cellophane, then asks ChatGPT for a paragraph that she can write inside. Sent to her room by Mum, who expects an apology, Amelia asks an AI app to compose something sincere. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//In this piece of reflective prose, which derives from the recorded focus group that I conducted with some of Ms Stokes’ year 10 students during my second visit to The Sunshine School, I reflect upon the attitudes of students toward the role played by AI within their education.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Bothering] On 11th June 2026, I receive an email about ‘botherdeness’. In this message, James Mannion and Hywel Roberts explore what this peculiar word might mean, encouraging me to reflect on how teachers can enable students to care more about their learning – how we can enable students to be //bothered//. Later that same day, I am listening back to the audio-recording of the focus group that I conducted with five students from Ms Stokes’ year 10 English class. With the concept of botherdeness somewhere near the forefront of my mind, certain comments that students made during the focus group seem to glow. When I ask students if they care that AI is being used by teachers to aid lesson planning and resourcing, one responds ‘No. Not really, because you’re still learning.’ Another says that they are ‘still learning either way’. These students do not seem bothered by the role of AI in their teacher’s professional practice. Later, when we are talking about how students use AI, one describes how they use it to help with homework: ‘You like take a picture of the question and it just gives you the answer… it tells you how to do it, but I don’t read that.’ A student also talks about a piece of English homework, saying they used AI because they ‘didn’t know what to do, and [they] couldn’t really be bothered.’ Again, these students don’t seem significantly troubled by the ways in which AI is affecting their homework. As I reflect on the focus group and its recording, I am thinking about botherdeness. On Hywel Roberts’ website, he asks ‘How do you get children bothered about rivers if they haven’t got a bed?’ As I review the recording, I generate similar questions: How do you get students bothered about writing if they have access to GenAI? Do teaches need to think harder about how their writing pedagogies can //bother// the student-writers before them? {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//At Scott’s Grammar School, Mr Stratton is running a timetabled but optional writing and AI research programme for students in year 12. One student, Graham, signed up to the option, and each week the pair are exploring how AI might shape writing practices and pedagogy. While visiting Scott’s Grammar School, I observed and participated in one of their timetabled sessions. During the session, Graham and Mr Stratton discussed how Graham had received feedback from both Mr Stratton and Microsoft Copilot on the playscript he had been writing. To help me make critical-creative sense of the session in a way that felt appropriate, I wrote the following passage in the form of a playscript. Whilst the script derives from the audio-recoded session and features things that were said, it does not correspond exactly to a single episode of the session.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Developing a Script] (align:"=><=")[(text-style:"underline")[ACT I Scene 1]] //A sunlit classroom on an upper floor of a secondary grammar school. Outside, children’s shouts and laughter can be dimly heard. The bounce of a football is audible. Shelves of novels, plays and exercise books stand at the edges the room, and posters hang on the walls. At the front of the room sits a teacher: Mr Stratton. He is sat on a black, wheelie office chair. A laptop computer is open in front of him. Almost directly opposite him, in the front row of desks, sat on a blue plastic chair and facing Mr Stratton, there is a student: Graham. A researcher, Sam, also sits in the front row of desks, two spaces to Graham’s right.// (align:"=><=")[SAM]I’m not sure how to play this… With my other participants I’d be watching a lesson, so… I’m aware that today I’m participating more than I might do otherwise, but you know… <div style="text-indent: 10em;">(Laughs)</div>In for a penny! I’ve got some questions for you both now, like, while I’ve got you both here, just based on what you’ve said, like, <div style="text-indent: 10em;">(Gesturing towards GRAHAM)</div>you were talking about the feedback: How was Mr Stratton’s feedback different to the feedback that Copilot provided, do you think? <div style="text-indent: 10em;">(Pause)</div>(align:"=><=")[GRAHAM]Well, Mr Stratton provided a lot of kind of Englishy advice, like how to perfect the grammar, how to fully bring out the characters. His feedback, generally speaking, was a lot more useful. AI would give more drama, production-based features, like, <div style="text-indent: 10em;">(Pause)</div>‘You could direct a change in lighting or set.’ But a lot of the time it will also be quite over-praising, very much focusing on praise. (align:"=><=")[MR STRATTON (Looking from his laptop, to SAM, to GRAHAM)]I assume that the minute you told AI, ‘Here’s a drama script,’ it was filtering everything through the lens of production and theatricality and stagecraft, and I’m not saying I don’t have that in mind, but I saw it as a script first and then a performance potentially later. <div style="text-indent: 10em;">(Pause)</div>And also, if an English teacher can’t point at something and say, ‘that doesn’t work,’ and ‘that’s kind of technically wrong,’ then your role as an English teacher is diminished. So, maybe it was human weakness, or just my own weakness, to focus on technical procedure and accuracy. But it’s interesting that you found my advice, if I’m right, more useful than the AI overall? (align:"=><=")[GRAHAM]Yeah, overall, your ideas were more useful. You helped make sure the script was clear, and I feel that AI was looking at the play as a whole, but you were breaking it down much more, looking at different grammatical, technical features. (align:"=><=")[SAM]Ok interesting. And did the teacher feedback //look// different to the Copilot feedback? <div style="text-indent: 10em;">(Pause)</div>(align:"=><=")[MR STRATTON]I guess that my comments were more, kind of written in the body of the text. Rather than saying, ‘go back and read. Work out entrances, exits, dialogue,’ it was kind of, ‘//here//, I think //this// should happen. What are you doing //there//?’ {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//During my interview with Mr Stratton from Scott’s Grammar School, which was conducted via Microsoft Teams the day after my in-person visit, I mentioned I was forming the impression that, for him, working with AI could be compared to ‘working in the shadow of these great and invisible ghosts.’ The following found poem relates to a story that Mr Stratton told, a story from which this ghost metaphor began to emerge.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Great and Invisible Ghosts] When I started teaching, a long time ago, I tended to share sixth from groups with the head of English, and the head of English was always old enough to be my dad! At my first school, it was this wonderful guy called Nicholas Sharpe… Well, this group has just come from a one-hour lesson with Nicholas, and he knows everything, he’s got this voluminous knowledge of literature; the human version of AI. And then here’s me – the NQT or the second-year teacher – What am I going to add? It takes me back to that feeling: there’s another more able practitioner, and I share the group with them. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//After my interview with Mr Stratton from Scott’s Grammar School, I found myself reflecting on the differences between the attention that a GenAI assistant can offer to a student and the attention that a teacher can offer. In this passage, I tell a story of meaning-making, examining how I came to think about questions of attention during and after my conversation with Mr Stratton.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Embodied, Localised, Human Attention] Unlike the other interviews, focus groups, and observations that were conducted as part of this study, I interviewed Mr Stratton remotely. With his consent, our interview was recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Teams. It wasn’t until I was most of the way through my first review of this interview recording that I recalled there was an AI-generated transcript I could refer to. The AI-generated transcript could have reduced the time that I devoted to reviewing and reflecting upon the recorded interview. I could have spent less time sat at my desk listening, rewinding, typing, correcting, thinking… AI could have reduced the time that my human body spent attending to our recorded discussion. Mr Stratton also said several things during our interview that helped me think more about embodied human attention. For example, he indicated that, when providing Graham with feedback on his playscript, he didn’t only comment on grammatical features. He also commented on certain ‘practical things.’ For example, he mentioned to Graham that his script was asking ‘actors to memorise 10 or 15 lines of text, some of which could be better expressed or reworded or made more concise.’ Mr Stratton here demonstrates an awareness of the embodied humanity of actors, of the time and physical effort required to learn and recite lines from a script. Contrastingly, Mr Stratton spoke of AI’s attention span, drawing attention to the material differences between teacher attention and an AI assistant’s attention. According to Mr Stratton, for AI, there is ‘no time’: ‘you can leave an AI window open and come back to it in a week, and give it a prompt,’ and it will respond as if no time has passed. It will usually not have forgotten what came before. The same chat can also be accessed via different devices and exists across a distributed and connected network of servers, systems and connections. From Mr Stratton’s perspective, this gives AI a form of ‘panoramic birds eye immediacy’. The panoramic and distributed span of AI’s attention differs from that of Mr Stratton. When he reads a piece of student work, he is ‘necessarily focussing on the here and now […], and [he] might not even remember where the whole thing started’. For Mr Stratton, this is the ‘competition that AI offers.’ Mr Stratton’s comments foreground the noteworthy and distinct capacities of human teachers; in the context of his work, Mr Stratton has the capacity to devote embodied, localised, human attention to his students and to their writing. Moreover, Mr Stratton’s attention is culturally situated. At Scott’s Grammar School, year 12 students are allowed one hour per week to devote to supervised, optional research projects. Consequently, ‘it’s not unusual to have small groups of year 12 students, once a week, doing quite […] clever research.’ It is this context that enables Mr Stratton to devote attention to Graham’s writing. Contrastingly, Microsoft Copilot has a necessarily limited contextual understanding of how its attention is culturally situated. Like Mr Stratton, as a researcher, I have the capacity to devote embodied, localised, human attention to our recorded interview, a capacity that I choose to exercise in the writing of this story. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

//The focus group that I conducted at Scott’s Grammar School became an interview, as there was just one student participating in the timetabled year 12 research project that Mr Stratton was running. During my interview with this student (Graham), the topic of distress came repeatedly to the fore. In this passage, I tell a story of how I began to make sense of the relationship between writing, AI and school-based distress.// (text-style:"bold","underline")[Distress] When I began listening back to my interview with Graham, I was surprised to discover that the recording contained a persistent and resonant ringing sound. This ringing sound ran under, over and through every word that we shared. It felt as if there must have been some steady flow of air running over the metal components of my borrowed field recorder throughout our discussion, but I had no memory of such a thing. I thought back to the space in which the interview had been conducted – a meeting room containing a large boardroom-style table that was surrounded on at least three sides by glass walls. It seemed possible that these hard and reflective surfaces were to blame for what I felt to be a distortion of the recording. Alternatively, there may have been an air-conditioning unit that was contributing to this strange noise. However it materialised, this ringing sound became part of the recording, and it leant the recorded interview a surprisingly clinical feel. For me, it was reminiscent of hospitals and doctors’ waiting rooms. Graham’s words also contributed to this effect: he repeatedly referred to the ways in which AI might participate in the generation of either stress or reassurance, which in turn drew my attention towards the notion of care within school-based education. Firstly, Graham described how, before his GCSE exams, he had not wanted to ‘worry’ his ‘busy’ teachers. Therefore, he had asked ChatGPT whether responses he had written were ‘good enough’. He was using ChatGPT to reassure himself. However, he also remembered a time when an AI chatbot had repeatedly highlighted aspects of his work that needed ‘improvement’, causing Graham to get ‘stressed with it’ and stop using it completely. Secondly, reflecting on the role that AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot should play in education, Graham stated that he would ‘feel a bit bad to say “oh yeah, there’s a Copilot which can do this in a minute.”’ He also stated that such resources would not necessarily improve efficiency but would instead ‘just […] stress people out’. Finally, Graham observed that AI is making increased demands upon students who feel the need to edit their work out of fear of being falsely accused of using GenAI. This additional work might involve ‘avoiding em dashes, avoiding lots of bullet points, avoiding […] friendly language’. Overall, these examples, in conjunction with the distorted sound of the recording, suggest a need for educators to caringly attend to the distress that AI can elicit amongst student-writers. I was therefore pleased to hear that Graham had very much enjoyed working one-to-one with Mr Stratton on the AI writing research project they were conducting. I was especially pleased to hear that, as a result of this project, Graham felt ‘much more assured’ and confident in his own ability to identify when he had and had not used AI ‘appropriately’. {(align:"=><=")[($storyControl:)]}

{(Set: $Introduction to "Not Done") (set: $score to 0) (set: $AllStories to (a: "V1S1", "V1S2", "V1S3", "V1S4", "V1S5", "V1S6", "V1S7", "V1S8", "V1S9", "V2S10", "V2S11", "V2S12","V2S13", "V2S14", "V2S15", "V3S16", "V3S17", "V3S18", "V3S19", "V3S20", "V3S21")) (set: $HumanCollab to (a: "V1S2", "V1S3", "V1S4", "V1S7", "V1S8", "V1S9", "V2S10", "V2S12", "V2S13", "V2S14", "V3S16", "V3S17", "V3S19")) (set: $AICollab to (a: "V1S1", "V1S4", "V1S6", "V1S8", "V1S9", "V2S11", "V2S13", "V2S14", "V2S15", "V3S16", "V3S17", "V3S21")) (set: $Attention to (a: "V1S2", "V1S3", "V1S5", "V1S7", "V1S8", "V1S9", "V2S12", "V2S13", "V3S16", "V3S17", "V3S18", "V3S20")) (set: $Feedback to (a: "V1S1", "V1S3", "V1S4", "V1S5", "V1S6", "V1S7", "V1S9", "V2S12", "V3S16", "V3S17", "V3S21")) (set: $StudentResponse to (a: "V1S1", "V1S2", "V1S4", "V1S7", "V1S8", "V1S9", "V2S12", "V2S15", "V3S16", "V3S17", "V3S21")) (set: $Prose to (a: "V1S1", "V1S4", "V1S5", "V1S6", "V1S9", "V2S11", "V2S13", "V2S15", "V3S20", "V3S21")) (set: $Poetry to (a: "V1S2", "V1S3", "V1S7", "V1S8", "V2S10", "V2S12", "V2S14", "V3S17", "V3S18", "V3S19")) (set: $Compare to (a: "V1S5", "V2S11", "V2S12", "V2S13", "V2S15", "V3S16", "V3S17", "V3S18", "V3S19", "V3S20")) (set: $storyControl to (macro: [(output:)[(if: $score < 3)[(if: $navigate is "title")[(link: "Return")[(goto: "titles")]](else-if: $navigate is "visit1")[(link: "Return")[(goto: "Visit 1")]](else-if: $navigate is "visit2")[(link: "Return")[(goto: "Visit 2")]](else-if: $navigate is "visit3")[(link: "Return")[(goto: "Visit 3")]](else:)[(link: "Next Story")[(set: $score to $score + 1)(set: $nextStory to (either: ...$remainder))(set: $remainder to $remainder - (a: $nextStory))(goto: $nextStory)]]](else:)[(link-goto: "Finish", "End")]]]))}

{<div style=" position: fixed; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; border-bottom: 1px solid #d8d8d8; padding: 0 0.8em; background: #f3f3f3; display: flex; align-items: center; z-index: 9999; box-sizing: border-box; min-height: 2.2em; "> <div style=" flex:1; display:flex; justify-content:flex-start; align-items:center; padding-left:1em; font-size:1em; line-height:1; "> (link-goto: "<span style='font-size:1.2em;'>⌂</span>", "Home") </div> <div class="header-title" style=" flex:1; display:flex; justify-content:center; align-items:center; font-size:clamp(0.7em, 2vw, 1em); font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:0.03em; line-height:1; text-align: center; overflow-wrap:break-word; "> Writing after AI </div> <div style=" flex:1; display:flex; justify-content:flex-end; align-items:center; padding-right:1em; font-size:1em; line-height:1; "> (link: "←")[ (undo:) ] </div> </div>}

Now that you have read some of my research stories, what are your thoughts? How did the research stories compare, and how did they affect one another? How have these stories affected your views on the pedagogical affordances of AI for writing practices and pedagogies? * (link-goto: "Exit", "Farewell") * (link-goto: "Keep Exploring", "explore")

''The following research stories all derive from my visit to Mr Sadie and his students at The Sunshine School. Click on the titles of the stories you would like to explore.'' * (link: "Chloe: A Character Profile")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S1")] * (link: "I’ll Take Anything")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S2")] * (link: "A Text Deserves an Audience")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S3")] * (link: "A Sales Pitch")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S4")] * (link: "The Formatting of Feedback")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S5")] * (link: "A Living Contradiction")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S6")] * (link: "Give")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S7")] * (link: "After School")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S8")] * (link: "Ease and Dissatisfaction")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V1S9")]

''The following research stories all derive from my visit to Ms Stokes and her students at The Sunshine School. Click on the titles of the stories you would like to explore.'' * (link: "A Taser in the Classroom")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S10")] * (link: "The Line Outside")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S11")] * (link: "Language Paper One")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S12")] * (link: "Beyond Language")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S13")] * (link: "Mothering")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S14")] * (link: "Bothering")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V2S15")]

''The following research stories all derive from my visit to Mr Stratton and his student at Scott’s Grammar School. Click on the titles of the stories you would like to explore.'' * (link: "Developing a Script")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S16")] * (link: "Developing a Sonnet")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S17")] * (link: "No Time to AI")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S18")] * (link: "Great and Invisible Ghosts")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S19")] * (link: "Embodied, Localised, Human Attention")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S20")] * (link: "Distress")[(set: $score to $score +1)(goto: "V3S21")]

Thank you for exploring this interactive collection of research stories If you have any questions, feedback, or if you’d like to discuss this research, please contact Sam Holdstock via email: <a href="mailto:sam.holdstock@canterbury.ac.uk">sam.holdstock@canterbury.ac.uk</a>