Sarah Sterman

Yijun Liu, Yifan Song, John Gallagher et al.

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate writing feedback, there remains no systematic comparison of LLM and expert feedback on the dimensions that writing research identifies as central to revision: goal-orientation, anchoring to specific sentences, and prioritization. We introduce FOXGLOVE, a dataset of 696 feedback comments written by trained writing instructors on 69 twelfth-grade argumentative essays, paired with 1,644 comments generated from four frontier LLMs under a shared protocol, totaling 2,340 comments. We provide expert quality ratings on a subset of both instructor and LLM comments. We find that instructors and LLMs distribute feedback similarly across goals and essay positions, yet instructors and models diverge on the specific sentences on which to provide feedback. Additionally, we find that models tend to write more complex feedback and use fewer questions than instructors. LLM feedback also receives higher ratings on most dimensions of quality, as rated by instructors, but much of this advantage appears to be attributable to lengthier comments. FOXGLOVE enables systematic comparison of where human and LLM feedback align, diverge, and differ.

Sophia Liu, Sarah Abowitz, Yijun Liu et al.

Reading augmentation systems increasingly help readers process text at scale. While these tools address real constraints of time and cognitive load, they often implicitly frame reading as information transmission, or "reading to discard," delegating interpretation and effort to the machine. Yet this delegation changes the outcome of reading. For example, in scholarly reading, deciding what a research text implies and why it matters is central to the work of scholarly production. We propose creative reading as an alternative goal: reading augmentation that supports readers in creating both readings and themselves as readers. By putting literary and narrative theories into conversation with scholarly sensemaking and creativity support, we present a provocation-oriented design space for valuing the process of reading as a way of preserving a plurality of readings and transforming readers over time.

Mina Lee, Katy Ilonka Gero, John Joon Young Chung et al. · allen-ai, deepmind

In our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through a large community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions (i.e., fundamental components of an aspect) and codes (i.e., potential options for each dimension) by systematically reviewing 115 papers. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the envisioning and design of new writing assistants.

Joy Kim, Sarah Sterman, Allegra Argent Beal Cohen et al.

Crowdsourcing systems accomplish large tasks with scale and speed by breaking work down into independent parts. However, many types of complex creative work, such as fiction writing, have remained out of reach for crowds because work is tightly interdependent: changing one part of a story may trigger changes to the overall plot and vice versa. Taking inspiration from how expert authors write, we propose a technique for achieving interdependent complex goals with crowds. With this technique, the crowd loops between reflection, to select a high-level goal, and revision, to decompose that goal into low-level, actionable tasks. We embody this approach in Mechanical Novel, a system that crowdsources short fiction stories on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In a field experiment, Mechanical Novel resulted in higher-quality stories than an iterative crowdsourcing workflow. Our findings suggest that orienting crowd work around high-level goals may enable workers to coordinate their effort to accomplish complex work.