Hello and welcome to the announcement of our Essay Writing Contest Scholarship winners!
As usual, we’re super excited to cut straight to the chase, but we can’t do so without a quick recap.
And there are things worth mentioning, to be honest. Last year, we stated that we received a lot more submissions than anticipated, with 773 works in total and 578 evaluated papers. Well, this year, the record was broken again, as we received 783 essays and accepted 659 of them. Unfortunately, we had to reject 124 works for various reasons: contest requirements not being fulfilled, wrong topic, plagiarism, or work format issues.
We are thankful to all the participants for filling this contest with creativity and bright ideas!
Here’s a short reminder of the evaluation criteria that we used:
- Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling – 20 points;
- Content and Ideas – 20 points;
- Use of Language and Style – 30 points;
- Organization – 20 points;
- MLA Referencing – 10 points.
On average, all 659 that we evaluated got 68.4 points. Good job!
With all the statistics out of the way, let’s name this year’s winners!
1st place and the $1,000 prize goes to Isabella Barricklow with the essay “The Pen is Mightier than the Keyboard: School as Protective and Preventive Factor Against Cyberbullying,” which got 90 points. Congratulations!
The Pen is Mightier than the Keyboard: School as Protective and Preventive Factor Against Cyberbullying
The internet’s vastness makes the issue of cyberbullying seem as evasive as water slipping through one’s fingers. However, to effectively understand and work towards eliminating the complex phenomenon, an institution must take responsibility for the issue, mainly, comprehending its intricate causes and functions across communities and establishing systems and programs towards its prevention. This responsibility should fall to schools; while not always the location where cyberbullying takes place, schools control its progress and develop solutions with consideration for intersectionality in a way that parents and other organizations may lack the resources to do and are the most adequately regulated, pedagogically-equipped, and consistent resource for education acquisition and distribution on cyberbullying.
Teacher training and professional skill are factors in successfully addressing intersectional elements of cyberbullying and ensuring homologous, pedagogical awareness and prevention education. The experience of cyberbullying will be different for students based on their diverse backgrounds as well as their developmental stages. For example, Emily Vogels finds that low household income increases the likelihood of cyberbullying and race influences student cynicism of law enforcement efforts to reduce cyberbullying (1). Additionally, students in higher and further education continue to experience cyberbullying but are less likely to seek help, expressing moral disengagement and less empathy (Myers and Cowie). Acknowledging these intersections in the issue of cyberbullying must fall to professionals who are continually trained to do so. Research suggests teachers and administrators who undergo district professional development and training sessions gain the cultural competency required to do this and can even improve student academic outcomes and increase educator “professional efficacy” in doing so (Hamdan and Coloma 110
Furthermore, districts and teachers have the resources and pedagogical structures, or can acquire them, to carry out best practices in cyberbullying prevention. Tozzo et al. find that the most effective cyberbullying interventions were education-based and interactive, whereas “prescriptive and juridical” interventions were much less effective. However, to implement these educational programs, both “complex knowledge of cyberbullying” and “expertise and competencies in the field of media education” are needed (Tomczyk and Wloch 14). Districts and educational environments can provide teachers with this expertise in a relatively homologous way, monitored and assessed by professional development requirements and district standards. In contrast, parents are capable of educating their children on these issues, but there is no way of enforcing this, knowing if resources are accessible for all parents, assessing their understanding and progress, or ensuring that all parents implement research-based, intersectional, best practices. Yosep et al. find that a vast majority of parents both felt and demonstrated they lacked knowledge regarding cyberbullying and resources to address it, and the strategies and resources they do use are varied (Yosep et al.). Teaching, however, is a regulated profession where trained professionals undergo constant observation, assessment, and development where cyberbullying education and prevention strategies can be pedagogically informed and monitored, leading to better results.
Finally, education laws give schools the advantage of state-required, mandatory attendance for twelve years, making them a setting where information can be consistently shared across students’ educational lifespans. Tozzo et al. find that, across studies, longer versions of intervention programs targeting cyberbullying had more positive outcomes when compared with shorter versions. Tomczyk and Wloch’s research supports this, stating a weakness in programs is their occasional use when they should be administered more frequently (20). Additionally, students outside the K-12 educational system have less avenues for help and resources, especially those who transition out of the obligatory educational system (Myers and Cowie). While some students may not have consistent parental messaging, life experiences, or access to resources in their home lives or when they leave school, it can generally be assumed that school will be a consistent, actively controlled, and regulated setting in their lives for at least twelve years where the issue of cyberbullying can be addressed continually and empower them to address issues autonomously once out of school.
School, as an institution whose pedagogy and practices are constantly evolving and undergoing assessment and a consistent setting for students, must be entrusted with reducing cyberbullying. If knowledge is both a weapon against cyberbullying and a healing tool, then schools are the fortresses whose walls protect and enrich the lives of children, creating lasting change in society.
Works Cited
Hamdan, Suha, and Roland Sintos Coloma. “Assessing Teachers’ Cultural Competency.” The Journal of Educational Foundations, vol. 35, no. 1, Caddo Gap Press, Spring 2022, pp. 108-128. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1358841.pdf. Accessed 16 June 2024.
Myers, Carrie-Anne, and Helen Cowie. “Cyberbullying across the lifespan of education: Issues and interventions from school to University.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16, no. 7, 4 Apr. 2019, p. 1217, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071217. Accessed 16 June 2024.
Tomczyk, Łukasz, and Anna Włoch. “Cyberbullying in the light of challenges of school-based prevention.” International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), vol. 7, no. 3, 20 Dec. 2019, pp. 13–26, https://doi.org/10.5937/ijcrsee1903013t. Accessed 16 June 2024.
Tozzo, Pamela, et al. “Family and educational strategies for cyberbullying prevention: A systematic review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 16, 22 Aug. 2022, p. 10452, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610452. Accessed 16 June 2024.
Vogels, Emily A. “Teens and Cyberbullying 2022.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 15 Dec. 2022, www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/12/15/teens-and-cyberbullying-2022/. Accessed 16 June 2024.
Yosep, Iyus, et al. “Preventing cyberbullying and reducing its negative impact on students using e-parenting: A scoping review.” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 3, 17 Jan. 2023, p. 1752, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031752.
2nd place and the $500 prize received by Sebastian LaRoche with the essay “Adjusting Pupils – The Future of AI in Education,” which got 88 points. Well done!
Adjusting Pupils – The Future of AI in Education
A new sun sits on the horizon. Should we prepare the solar panels? Wait for our pupils to adjust? Students of the future, a different type of pupil, face similar questions. Artificial Intelligence has immense potential for improving Education, but its usage has clear risks, including job-replacement, privacy, and socioeconomic disparities. In this essay, I will not refute these risks but propose methods of obtaining the benefits of AI-assisted education while adapting to these and other concerns.
While AI’s continuous growth and economic potential might threaten many labor-intensive jobs currently occupied by humans, human teachers are well away from being replaced. Sarah Hanawald, Senior Director of the Association for Academic Leaders, argues that while “AI tools can help provide personalized learning for a student,” it would require a teacher’s oversight. Not only is student motivation correlated with a positive student-teacher relationship (Rimm-Kaufman), but datasets AI uses in its Algorithm are limited by bias and human error. With an AI-based learning system, teachers and professors also gain insight about their students’ learning styles (Rouhiainen). Therefore, it is evident that AI would best augment teachers rather than replace them. Perhaps a hybrid classroom with information introduced by humans and further explained by machines could accomplish this.
It is no secret that technology’s growth poses a threat to user privacy with the misuse of personal data. As Cameron F. Kerry from the Center for Technology Innovation puts it, “As artificial intelligence evolves, it magnifies the ability to use personal information in ways that can intrude on privacy interests by raising analysis of personal information to new levels of power and speed.” With AI-assisted education, monitoring students, even for the sake of tracking learning styles, could potentially risk those student’s personal information. However, what is more infrequently talked about is the effect this would have on the student. Daniel Buck at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute likens the experience of a student in this environment to a prisoner of the theoretical Panopticon, a circular prison popularized by French philosopher Michel Foucault in which, through a light at the center of the facility, prisoners would feel under constant surveillance. Thus, proper behavior would be fostered. What happens to a student in this situation? “A report from the National Association of State Boards of Education suggests that students are less likely to feel safe enough for free expression” (Buck). The National Library of Medicine links several more issues with constant surveillance, including heightened anxiety and decreased mental health. Fortunately, by keeping this in mind, creating a solution is far from impossible. Pairing the hybrid classroom concept from before with legal enforcement of minimizing data collection might be able to inhibit privacy concerns and minimize student surveillance.
It is a fact that “students routinely receive dramatically different learning opportunities based on their social status” (Darling-Hammond). This is mainly due to resource disparity, with higher-poverty schools unable to afford updated technology. Implementing AI in schools is reminiscent of when Internet access was doled out unequally. Since “People without (Internet) connectivity are often those with lower incomes” (Muller), it created a “digital divide” that obstructs social mobility, and if only wealthier schools can utilize AI, why wouldn’t the same happen now but worse? It’s as if the state of Education is an arms race, and only those born able to afford the means can succeed. The Learning Policy Institute also describes this as a “cumulative disadvantage” and proposes that, for social equity to be achieved concerning resource disparities in Education, “equal access for these (impoverished) students requires additional resources.” This might mean upgrading lower-income schools with AI first or making sure this revolutionary resource is available to everyone regarding economic standing.
In conclusion, to obtain the benefits of AI-assisted education without replacing jobs, lowering student privacy, or threatening social mobility, I propose heavy research into a new education system. This might mean a hybrid classroom, limits to how businesses use data, or strategic allocation of AI as a resource. But no matter the solution, I hope we as a people can let our eyes adjust to the new sun on our horizon in the hopes that we will someday see a classroom perfected.
Works Cited
Buck, Daniel. “AI is a serious threat to student privacy.” The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 5 October 2023, https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/ai-serious-threat-student-privacy. Accessed 28 June 2024.
Hammond, Linda. “Inequality in Teaching and Schooling: How Opportunity Is Rationed to Students of Color in America.” NCBI, 2001, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223640/. Accessed 28 June 2024.
Hanawald, Sarah. “AI Won’t Replace Teachers—But It Could Help Them.” ERB, 12 September 2023, https://www.erblearn.org/blog/ai-wont-replace-teacher-intelligence/. Accessed 28 June 2024.
Humane, Sonal. “Exploring the Impact of Security Technologies on Mental Health: A Comprehensive Review.” NCBI, 5 February 2024, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10918303/. Accessed 28 June 2024.
Muller, Charlie. “What Is the Digital Divide?” Internet Society, 3 March 2022, https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/what-is-the-digital-divide/. Accessed 28 June 2024.
Oakes, Jeannie, et al. “Adequate and Equitable Education in High-Poverty Schools: Barriers and Opportunities in North Carolina.” Learning Policy Institute, 18 June 2021, https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/leandro-high-poverty-schools-brief. Accessed 28 June 2024.
Rimm, Sara, and Lia Sandilos. “Improving students’ relationships with teachers.” American Psychological Association, 2010, https://www.apa.org/education-career/k12/relationships. Accessed 28 June 2024.
Rouhiainen, Lasse. “How AI and Data Could Personalize Higher Education.” Harvard Business Review, 14 October 2019, https://hbr.org/2019/10/how-ai-and-data-could-personalize-higher-education. Accessed 28 June 2024.
Wheeler, Tom. “Protecting privacy in an AI-driven world | Brookings.” Brookings Institution, 10 February 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/protecting-privacy-in-an-ai-driven-world/. Accessed 28 June 2024.
As you can see, the competition was quite fierce this year.
Again, big thanks to everyone who participated in the contest and cast their votes.
Don’t be discouraged if you couldn’t take the winning place, as there will always be another chance in our future competitions. Stay on the lookout for new updates on our writing contest and video contest pages!
