Exploring the Roots of Unoriginality in Narrative Composition; An Action

Research Investigation into Enhancing Originality in Storytelling

A Research Project
Presented to the Faculty of the Junior High School Department
Padada National High School

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

In Arts Research
SY 2023-2024

Gatcho, Alaiza
Camporedondo, Angel
Razonable, Zephany Reign
Tenebro, Chelou Marie
Mamanao, Princess Era

June 2024
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

One prevalent issue among Padada National High School creative writing

students is the absence of originality when crafting a narrative. Some writers resort to

employing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool, such as ChatGPT, and plagiarize. Hence,

even narratives perceived as highly original are susceptible to containing elements

borrowed or inspired by existing works. This challenges the conventional notion of

originality in writing, suggesting that writers should concentrate on integrating distinctive

combinations of pre-existing elements. The underlying issue of originality deficiency in

storytelling includes the utilization of stereotypes and the conformity to predictable

plotlines. Additionally, it involves appropriating ideas or characters from other works

without incorporating any novel or unique elements. The consequence is a narrative

that radiates an aura of unoriginality and lacks the spark of creativity and imagination.

Throughout history, being good at writing has always been seen as really

important for humans to move forward. But now, with the latest developments in

generative AI (basically, smart computer programs), things are changing a lot. In today's

world filled with technology, it's clear that artificial intelligence (AI) is now part of almost

everything we do (Karadoğan, 2023). According to Lozić and Štular (2023), we're at a

crucial point in this story. Creativity is a big part of who we are, and this new thing called

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) could make us more creative with fresh ideas
or, on the flip side, make us less creative by sticking too closely to GenAI-generated

ideas (Doshi & Hauser, 2023).

The narrative of originality in composition spans the historical evolution,

encompassing how various academic disciplines have responded to the rising

apprehensions about plagiarism in higher education institutions. According to Shamay-

Tsoory, Adler-Peretz, Perry, and Mayseless (2011, as cited in Sternberg & Lubart,

1999), creativity is characterized by the capacity to generate responses that are not only

original, rare, and unexpected but also adaptive and useful within the constraints of a

given In contrast to convergent thinking, which aims to identify a singular correct

solution, creativity or divergent thinking involves the conscious generation of novel ideas

that diverge, offering numerous potential solutions to a given problem.

Over time, the field has consistently challenged the romanticized notion of a

solitary genius toiling away in isolation on a written piece (Porter, 1986; Selzer, 1993).

However, Johnson and Selber (2007) argued that as a practice, composition still tends

to cut closely to the idea when educators begin dealing with issues of plagiarism.

Johnson and Selber (2007) also suggested that plagiarism is still tied to the concept of

creativity. In addition, Price (2002) also challenged the widespread tendency in

institutional policies to construct plagiarism as a stable, monolithic concept. Because

plagiarism is defined differently in varying situations. She argued for a situated view that

is sensitive to local conventions and practices. A rhetorical perspective has also been

advanced by Porter (2006) in a convention saying ways teachers plagiarize all the time
and calls it “ethical plagiarism,” cases in which the sharing and reusing of ideas is not

only tolerated but also encouraged by a community in part to help educate its members.

In his rhetorical approach, Porter (2006) argued for an ethical middle ground that

promotes filesharing and fair use rather than surveillance and policing behaviors.

Johnson and Selber (2007), put two conventional terms—plagiarism and

originality—into conversation with a third, potentially controversial term—assemblage—

to comment on the nature of writing in a remix culture. Although notions of plagiarism

and originality continue to evolve, our disciplinary discourse has historically expressed

interest in such interrelated issues as working with source materials, inventing

arguments, and conducting primary research. Plagiarism and originality, in other words,

are two of the many tropes that have helped to organize discussions of composers and

composing. In our everyday use of language, nearly every word and phrase we employ

has been encountered or seen previously. The uniqueness and skill in our writing stem

from how we arrange these familiar words in novel ways to suit our specific situations,

needs, and objectives. Despite this creativity, our reliance on the shared language we

have in common with others remains fundamental. It's through this shared language

that understanding between individuals is facilitated. While we often don't explicitly

acknowledge the sources of our words, they are drawn from a common linguistic pool

that seems widespread.

Occasionally, we may aim to convey a sense of individuality, emphasizing our

distinct perspectives and immediate concerns. However, there are instances where we
may not recall the origin of a particular phrase or expression. Conversely, sometimes

we intentionally highlight the source of our words. This could be attributed to the

authority of the source, a desire to critique the language used, or the intention to narrate

a compelling story associated with specific individuals, each with their unique

perspectives in a particular time and place. When we engage with the words of others,

we often don't ponder their origins, yet there are moments when we begin to discern the

significance of these words, sensing echoes from specific contexts. Examining these

connections aids in delving deeper into the meaning of the text (Bazerman, 2003).

In a study undertaken by Gonzales and De Peralta (2011) at Colegio de San

Juan de Letran Calamba during the academic year 2009-2010, it was suggested that a

slight correlation exists between reading habits and English writing proficiency.

Furthermore, Callora and Suñas (2023) conducted a study in the public schools of

Alamada, South Cotabato, revealing that students' writing proficiency levels were

categorized as Developing. Specifically, their proficiency in Content and Structure was

deemed Approaching Proficiency, while their Lexico-grammatical Ability and Mechanics

were classified as Developing. The study also identified that 1% were Novices, 28%

Intermediate, 48% Refined, 19% Superior, and 4% Distinguished writers, indicating a

need for vocabulary enrichment, mastery of grammar, spelling, capitalization,

punctuation, and, most importantly, writing skills.

However, creative writing, which demands creativity and imagination in

composing stories, poems, and dramas, remains a challenge for students (Villasor,
2018). A study conducted in a Catholic school in Digos City demonstrated that the

visual thinking strategy effectively enhanced students' creative writing skills (Villasor,

2018). Furthermore, Lehao (2018) proposed that utilizing a multimodal approach is

effective in teaching poetry writing, developing students' competencies in various

aspects of poetry, and integrating environmental literacy into poetry instruction. In a

thematic analysis, the following themes surfaced: "Writing is made easy with pictures,"

"painting facilitates writing," "writing is exciting, enjoyable, and fun," "liberating and self-

fulfilling," and "boosts self-confidence." In summary, visual arts serve as potent teaching

and learning tools that help students overcome writing apprehensions. As instructional

materials, they render the writing process more accessible and less daunting by

establishing meaningful connections to real-life experiences and authentic references,

thus generating mental images and fostering creative ideas (Superable, 2020).

Story writers prefer to maintain control over their writing process, especially when

they (1) prioritize the emotional values involved in translating ideas into words over the

efficiency of AI-generated writing; (2) possess high self-confidence and are hesitant to

rely on AI for challenging sub-tasks like creating characters and dialogue; and (3)

anticipate a potential mismatch between the AI control mechanism and their writing

strategies. Although modern large-scale language models are approaching the quality

of human-level writing, this advancement holds the promise of AI writing companions

capable of AI-led writing under human control, going beyond the capabilities of

traditional writing tools limited to revision and ideation support. However, the

collaborative nature of human-AI co-writing may pose a risk to writers' control,

autonomy, and ownership by potentially crossing co-creative boundaries (Biermann,

Ning, & Yoon, 2022). On the other hand, Miroshnichenko (2018) noted that there is a

widely held belief that journalism is a creative human endeavor, and the application of

weak or narrow artificial intelligence (AI) in this field poses challenges for robots

attempting to replicate it. In the same study, it was shown that readers sometimes

cannot differentiate between news written by robots or by humans; more importantly,

readers often make little of such distinctions. In addition, Anantrasirichai & Bull (2022)

proposed that soon, machine learning (ML)--based Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be

widely embraced as a tool or collaborative assistant for fostering creativity. However,

they highlight that the achievements of ML in areas where AI acts as the primary

'creator' are currently limited. The likelihood of AI or its developers winning awards for

original creations, especially when competing with human creatives using contemporary

technologies, is also constrained. Their conclusion emphasizes that the greatest benefit

from AI in creative industries will be realized when it is human-centric—designed to

enhance, rather than replace, human creativity.

Further, a study by Woo & Guo (2023) investigated the use of an AI-enabled tool

called Text Generator to enhance creative writing in secondary school students. The

research finds that the AI-supported approach significantly contributes to students'

creativity in terms of originality, flexibility, and elaboration. However, its impact varies

among students, affecting elaboration the most and flexibility the least. The major

takeaways include the availability of a Text Generator and a rubric for educators to

implement and evaluate the AI-supported approach in creative writing contexts. While
Text Generator enhances creative writing, educators are advised to guide students with

different writing skills in using the tool according to their individual needs.

According to Karadoğan (2023), artificial intelligence plays a dual role in

storytelling, presenting both advantages and drawbacks. On the positive side, it excels

in crafting narratives with a comprehensive outlook and has demonstrated its capability

to generate stories on contemporary events. However, its limitations include the

absence of human emotions and creativity, often resulting in the creation of predictable

fiction on conventional topics. Therefore, it is suggested that artificial intelligence can

assist writers as a tool, acknowledging its limitations is crucial. Despite current

shortcomings, the ongoing development of AI algorithms holds the potential to yield

more successful and nuanced stories in the future.

Moreover, Marzuki, Utami Widiati, Diyenti Rusdin, Darwin & Indrawati (2023)

identified several applications, including Quillbot, WordTune, Jenni, Chat-GPT,

Paperpal, Copy.ai, and Essay Writer. It is said that teachers in the study unanimously

agreed that these AI writing tools had a positive impact on their students' writing,

notably improving content quality and organizational skills. The unanimous agreement

among teachers suggests that incorporating AI writing tools can be advantageous in

enhancing the overall writing quality of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students.

Additionally, Lozić & Štular (2023) stated that all AI chatbots, but especially ChatGPT-4,

demonstrated proficiency in recombining existing knowledge, but all failed to generate

original scientific content suggesting that while large language models have
revolutionized content generation, their ability to produce original scientific contributions

in the humanities remains limited.

In the empirical study that examines ChatGPT as an educational and learning

tool, AlAfnan, Dishari, Jovic & Lomidze (2023) found that ChatGPT has the potential to

replace search engines as it provides accurate and reliable input to students. For

opportunities, the study found that ChatGPT provides a platform for students to seek

answers to theory-based questions and generate ideas for application-based questions.

It also provides a platform for instructors to integrate technology in classrooms and

conduct workshops to discuss and evaluate generated responses. For challenges, the

study found that ChatGPT, if unethically used by students, may lead to human

unintelligence and unlearning. This may also present a challenge to instructors as the

use of ChatGPT negatively affects their ability to differentiate between meticulous and

automation-dependent students, on the one hand, and measure the achievement of

learning outcomes, on the other hand. Moreover, it was found that ChatGPT skillfully

paraphrases regenerated responses in a way not detected by similarity detection

software.

Doshi and Hauser (2023) discovered that exposure to ideas generated by

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) led to stories being perceived as more

creative, well-written, and enjoyable, especially for individuals who may be less naturally

creative. However, when objectively assessing story similarity within each condition, it

became evident that stories enhanced by GenAI shared a greater resemblance than
those created solely by humans. These findings suggest an elevation in individual

creativity, yet there's a potential risk of diminishing collective originality. This situation

resembles a social dilemma where individual writers benefit from using GenAI to

enhance their writing, but collectively, it may lead to a narrower range of innovative

content. Additionally, Malik, Pratiwi, Andajani, Numertayasa, Suharti, Darwis, and

Marzuki (2023) assert that the convergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and academic

essay writing marks a transformative intersection in education, with each influencing

and reforming the other reciprocally. AI, with its innovative technologies and adaptable

learning strategies, enhances academic writing by providing dynamic, interactive

learning environments and personalized educational journeys. The study's findings

indicate a positive reception of AI-powered writing tools among students, who recognize

their benefits in grammar checks, plagiarism detection, language translation, and essay

outlining. AI is noted for its role in improving students' writing skills, self-efficacy, and

understanding of academic integrity. However, some students express concerns about

potential impacts on creativity, critical thinking, and ethical writing practices. The

research underscores the importance of a balanced approach to AI integration, where

AI collaborates with human authors. The study also identifies popular AI tools used by

Indonesian students. In essence, the research highlights AI's significant role in

supporting academic writing while preserving human creativity and critical thinking,

emphasizing the need for a balanced integration to sustain human ingenuity and critical

thought in academic discourse.

Research Questions
 The primary objective of this study is to explore the cause of unoriginality in

creative writing compositions among Creative Writing students of the Special Program

of the Arts. Thus, this study will specifically answer the following questions:

1. What role do cognitive processes, such as memory and imagination, play in

contributing to or limiting originality in narrative composition?

2. How do social and environmental factors influence the creative choices made

by writers, and what impact do these factors have on the perceived lack of

originality in storytelling?

3. How can narrative structures and storytelling techniques be manipulated to

enhance originality in writing?

4. How do the preferences of teachers and creative writing students in the SPA

program influence the pressure for stories to follow a certain pattern, potentially

limiting originality in narrative content?

5. How can personalized writing strategies and interventions positively impact the

development of originality in narrative composition?

Theoretical Lens
This study will be under Lewin’s ‘plan, act, observe, reflect’ cycle (Kemmis and

McTaggart, 1988). During an AR process, researchers and participants act together on

a particular cycle of activities, including problem diagnosis, action intervention, and

reflective learning (Avison et al. 1999). Albeit the cyclical models appear linear, the

iterations may be repeated and applied to new contexts (McKay and Marshall 2001).

This study is anchored on <add your theory>

 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This section presents the review of related literature and studies that contain essential

readings, theories, and scholarly findings that can help evaluate and elucidate the

study’s results.

Related Literature
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Research Design
 REFERENCES

Avison, D., F. Lau, M. Myers, and P. A. Nielsen. 1999. “Action Research.”

Communications of the ACM 42 (1): 94–91.
https://doi.org/10.1145/291469.291479.

Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (2003). What writing does and how it does it: An Introduction
to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Routledge.
Callora, I. J. O., & Suñas, W. P. (2023). The writing competence of senior high school
students in the public schools in Alamada, Cotabato. Zenodo (CERN European
Organization for Nuclear Research). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7646848
Else H. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature. 2023; 613(7944): 423–
423. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7
Fitria, T. N. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) technology in OpenAI ChatGPT application:
A review of ChatGPT in writing English essay. ELT Forum: Journal of English
Language Teaching, 12(1), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069

Gonzales, J. A. & De Peralta, C. O. (2011). The Relationship Between the Reading

Habits and the English Writing Proficiency Of the Selected 1st Year High School
Students of Colegio De San Juan De Letran Calamba, AY 2009-2010. Ani:
Letran Calamba Research Report, 1(1).
Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. A. (2007). Plagiarism, originality, assemblage.
Computers and composition, 24(4), 375-403.

Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart, eds. 1988. The Action Research Planner. 3rd ed.
Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Lehao, F. B. (2018). Effect of Multimodal Approach to the Poetry Writing Competencies

of Students. Tin-aw, 2(1).

McKay, J., and P. Marshall. 2001. “The Dual Imperatives of Action

Research.” Information Technology & People 14 (1): 46–59.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840110384771.

Porter, James E. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review,
5, 34–47

Porter, James E. (2006). Forget plagiarism, teach filesharing and fair use. Paper
presented at the convention of the Conference on College Composition and
Communication, Chicago, IL.

Price, Margaret. (2002). Beyond ‘gotcha!’: Situating plagiarism in policy and pedagogy.
College Composition and Communication, 54, 88–115
Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of
traditional assessments in higher education. Journal of Applied Learning and
Teaching, 6(1).

Selzer, Jack. (1993). Intertextuality and the writing process: An overview. In Rachel
Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 171–180).
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Stokel-Walker C. ChatGPT listed as an author on research papers: Many scientists

disapprove. Nature. 2023; 613: 620–621. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
Superable, D. S. (2020). Scaffolding Students’ Creative Writing Skills through Visual
Arts. JPAIR Institutional Research Journal, 15(1), 0.
Villasor, H. B. (2018). Effectiveness of Visual Thinking Strategy on Creative Writing
Skills among Senior High School Students. Tin-aw, 2(1).
Shamay‐Tsoory, S. G., Adler, N., Aharon‐Peretz, J., Perry, D., & Mayseless, N. (2011).
The origins of originality: The neural bases of creative thinking and originality.
Neuropsychologia, 49(2), 178–185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.11.020

Karadoğan, A. (2023). A Bridge Between Technology and Creativity: Story Writing with
Artificial Intelligence. İnsan Ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 406–423.
https://doi.org/10.53048/johass.1368950
Marzuki, Utami Widiati, Diyenti Rusdin, Darwin & Inda Indrawati (2023) The impact of
AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL
teachers’ perspective, Cogent Education, 10:2, DOI:
10.1080/2331186X.2023.2236469
Doshi, A. R., & Hauser, O. P. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence enhances
individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. arXiv
(Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2312.00506
Lozić, E., & Štular, B. (2023). ChatGPT v Bard v Bing v Claude 2 v Aria v human-expert.
How good are AI chatbots at scientific writing? arXiv (Cornell University).
https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15100336
Biermann, O. C., Ning, F., & Yoon, D. (2022). From tool to companion: storywriters want
AI writers to respect their personal values and writing strategies. Designing
Interactive Systems Conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533506
Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., &
Marzuki, M. (2023). Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Academic Essay: Higher
Education Student’s perspective. International Journal of Educational Research
Open, 5, 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296
Anantrasirichai, N., & Bull, D. (2022). Artificial intelligence in the creative industries: a
review. Artif Intell Rev 55, 589–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10039-7
Miroshnichenko, A. (2018). AI to Bypass Creativity. Will Robots Replace Journalists?
(The Answer Is “Yes”). Information, 9(7), 183.
https://doi.org/10.3390/info9070183

AlAfnan, M. A., Dishari, S., Jovic, M., & Lomidze, K. (2023). ChatGPT as an educational
tool: opportunities, challenges, and recommendations for communication,
business writing, and composition courses. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and
Technology. https://doi.org/10.37965/jait.2023.0184
Woo, D., & Guo, K. (2023). Exploring an AI-supported approach to creative writing:
Effects on secondary school students’ creativity. Research Gate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369013951_Exploring_an_AI-
supported_approach_to_creative_writing_Effects_on_secondary_school_student
s%27_creativity