Why an ICS Bangkok Teacher Says AI Can't Fake a True Voice

Ben Raden has spent 26 years teaching English as a second language at the International Community School of Bangkok, and on a recent episode of the school's student-run podcast, Students Incorporated, he made a case for writing instruction that sounds almost quaint in 2026: a piece of writing, he said, is "a window to the writer themselves." He and a colleague, identified on air as Mrs. Marilee, spent the episode walking three of ICS's youngest writers through what that window actually shows once someone opens it. The timing matters. American colleges and employers are, at this exact moment, scrambling to figure out whether the writing landing on their desks was written by the person whose name is on it at all.

A Window to the Writer

Raden's answer to the show's biggest-picture question, how writing skills shape a student's academic and professional future, was unhurried but specific. Writing, he said, is "important as both a way for colleges to see who this student is" and a way for anyone reading someone else's writing to "tell a lot about us, tell about our personality, about things we enjoy, our interests." He returned to the idea a few minutes later when a student asked what advice he'd give young writers: keep a journal, he said, because writing to yourself is how you end up able to look back, years later, and see "what I've been through, my different experiences and lessons I've learned."

It's really kind of like it opens up a window to the writer themselves.

Marilee, who supports elementary teachers across ICS's Bangkok and Udon Thani campuses and helps run the school's entry into the ACSI Creative Writing Festival, made a related but sharper claim about the cognitive work writing does. Writing, she said, forces a student to organize their thoughts before they've even finished having them, and forces them to consider who's going to read the result and what would actually land with that reader: "that idea of taking somebody else's perspective... is pretty important when you're solving basically any kind of problem as a critical thinker." That claim isn't just classroom folklore. James Pennebaker, the psychologist whose expressive-writing studies date to 1986, analyzed the language of people who wrote about their own experiences and found that the ones who benefited most used more "cognitive words" (realize, think, consider, because, reason), the vocabulary of someone actively building meaning out of what happened to them rather than just describing it. Writing, in other words, doesn't just record thinking. It seems to produce it.

The Essay Under Suspicion

That claim, that a piece of writing reveals something real and specific about the person who made it, is being contested right now in the part of a teenager's life where writing carries the highest stakes: the college essay. Education Week reported in July 2024 that roughly one in three college applicants had already used artificial intelligence for help with their essays, a number that has only climbed since. Admissions offices have noticed, and they are not neutral about it. In a survey the test-prep company Kaplan released in 2025, half of admissions officers said they consider AI assistance on an application essay unethical, while only 14% viewed it favorably, a position that has only hardened heading into 2026 as detection tools improve and admissions readers report actively scanning essays for machine-generated language.

That shift is changing what colleges actually do with essays. Inside Higher Ed reported in May 2026 on new research examining AI-written admissions essays directly, part of a broader overhaul that, according to admissions consultants tracking the 2025-2026 cycle, has pushed some schools to drop numeric essay scores altogether and add supplemental prompts that ask applicants to reflect on their own relationship with AI tools. The policy landscape is still a patchwork: some schools ban any AI involvement, others allow grammar help but not drafting, but the direction is consistent. Readers are looking harder for exactly the thing Raden described on air: a voice that could only belong to one specific person, with one specific set of experiences, rather than a smoothed average of everyone's.

Teaching It the Hard Way, Everywhere

What makes the ICS approach notable is that it doesn't treat writing as an English-class specialty. Marilee described writing showing up in science and social studies as note-taking and explanation, in math as students explaining their reasoning, and in Bible class as journaling about how a lesson connects to their own life. "We're using it all day long," she said, describing a school where reading and writing reinforce each other constantly rather than living in separate blocks of the schedule.

That cross-subject approach has a name in education research: explicit writing instruction embedded across the curriculum. The Writing Revolution, a nonprofit that trains teachers in the method, points to a Louisiana school district that moved from a state-rated "D" to a "B" by October 2025, crediting a substantial share of that jump to prioritizing this kind of instruction in every subject, not just English. The organization's own research summary argues that explicitly teaching planning, revising, and editing produces consistent gains in writing skill across grade levels, and that writing about content in science, social studies, and math has separately been shown to boost reading comprehension. None of that was framed as a research citation on the ICS podcast. It was just how Marilee described a normal Tuesday.

What the Students Actually Wrote

The clearest evidence for all of this arrived when the show handed the microphone to the students themselves. Kate, a seventh grader, read a poem called "The Maze of Life," written, she said, around the time she was baptized. It moves through fear, guilt, and loneliness as a literal maze before arriving at what she described as the thing that got her through it. It is not a polished piece of writing in any technical sense; its power is that a chatbot would have no reason to write it, no baptism to reference, no maze that meant that specific thing to it.

The same was true of the two fifth graders who followed. One read "A Bit of Hope," a poem naming Israel, Palestine, Ukraine, and Russia directly and landing, deliberately, on neutrality: "I am on no one's side. Violence is not the answer." The other read "Hope Reborn," a narrative poem about a girl finding her way out of despair. Asked earlier what part of writing they found most fun, one of the two described losing track of time and "writing and writing" until she couldn't stop; the other said it was hunting for the exact word that would let a reader picture what she meant. Both descriptions are, essentially, Pennebaker's cognitive-processing effect happening in real time in a fifth-grade classroom, whether or not anyone involved has ever heard his name.

None of these students were writing for an admissions committee. They were writing for their own classroom writing group, following advice from a teacher who told them, more than once, that the value of the exercise was in finding a person to read it with and writing regularly regardless of whether it felt inspired that day. Marilee's own advice to student writers was to find a writing partner, "somebody who would be interested in reading what you write and talking with you about what you write and helping you make it better," and then to write in different genres and take risks with the results. It's not a strategy built for the AI-detection era; ICS was already doing it before that era needed a strategy. But it happens to be exactly the kind of writing that current research says is both the hardest thing for a language model to produce convincingly and the thing an admissions reader, or an employer, or just another person, still recognizes on contact as real.

← Back to all posts