Writing, Reading, Support, and Cheating: How the Case of SparkNotes Can Inform Discussions on ChatGPT in English Language Arts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long before ChatGPT, it was an open secret that students did not always read the books they were assigned in their English Language Arts (ELA) classes, relying instead on online study guides like SparkNotes. Via a retrospective survey, our exploratory study examined (1) the rate of SparkNotes use among high-school ELA students; (2) why students used SparkNotes, and what type of support they received; and (3) what feelings and attitudes informed these decisions—e.g., did students consider SparkNotes a form of cheating? Our 209 participants were mostly “Ideal Readers,” motivated and engaged, but two-thirds reported having used SparkNotes to avoid assigned reading. We interpret this finding through the lens of New Literacy Studies, raising questions about the underlying goals of reading and literary analysis in ELA and alluding to a hidden curriculum focused on transmitting domain-specific values. We observe parallels between discussions about SparkNotes and the current conversation around ChatGPT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".