English Language and Literature Teachers, Postsecondary

However, core teaching tasks remain human. Grading essays and teaching writing classes still largely rely on people. Research shows AI can score student writing, but with caveats.

In one test, ChatGPT graded about 1,800 student essays about as well as trained human scorers ^[2]. Another analysis notes AI feedback is fast and consistent, but warns of issues like cost, ethics, and student privacy ^{[3] [2]}. Real-time work like mentoring students, collaborating with colleagues, or participating in events isn’t automated – it needs human judgment and care.

In short, tech may augment English teachers’ work (helping with records or drafting materials), but it doesn’t replace the teacher in the classroom or give personal advice.

On the other hand, colleges may be cautious. Switching to AI tools involves costs (software, training, updating). A report on AI grading noted debates over “cost, privacy, legality, and ethics” before using AI on student work ^[3].

Many educators worry about fairness or errors, and they value face-to-face teaching and mentorship. Also, academic budgets are tight and education is people-centered – saving a bit on grading doesn’t mean reducing tuition or faculty, since students still want human interaction. For these reasons, AI in higher-education teaching will probably augment rather than replace teachers: useful for paperwork or feedback, but classrooms and advising largely stay in human hands ^{[3] [2]}.