While writing essays can be a daunting task for many students, technology has provided some helpful tools for composing assignments through automated means. Using programs that type essays without any human input raises ethical concerns and often results in low-quality work. This article explores several free essay typing programs while addressing their limitations and discussing alternatives that involve more active participation from students.
One of the most well-known free essay typing programs is Grammarly. While Grammarly is primarily a grammar and spell checker, it also has a basic outlining and thesis statement generator. Students can type or paste in their essay ideas and Grammarly will analyze the text and provide suggestions to help structure the essay in a more coherent manner. It also checks for common errors and inconsistencies. Grammarly does not fully generate complete essays on its own. It is meant as an editing assistive tool rather than a replacement for human writing. Using Grammarly requires students to do the majority of the work in developing and typing out their own essays.
Another program that aims to help with essay composition is PaperRater. Like Grammarly, PaperRater performs grammar and style checks. It also rates essay ideas and outlines based on criteria like thesis clarity, topic sentences, and paragraph cohesion. Students receive feedback on how to improve weak areas. While PaperRater does not automatically generate full essays, it provides guidelines to help students self-assess and strengthen their writing. The program examines what students produce themselves rather than completely taking over the writing process. Still, the analysis and ratings from PaperRater should not be viewed as definitive—teachers may have differing opinions on an essay’s quality.
In contrast to Grammarly and PaperRater, the program WriteWrong fully generates complete sample essays based on topics selected by the user. Students enter a subject and WriteWrong returns essay templates to copy or be inspired by. Simply copying an automated essay is considered plagiarism and demonstrates a lack of original thought. Even if students rework the samples, the resulting paper may read very differently than if they composed it independently. Relying heavily on WriteWrong also fails to further the student’s writing and analytical abilities. At best, WriteWrong essays can offer high-level structure and topic ideas for revision by the student, not replacement of their own content and perspective.
Another potential issue with WriteWrong and similar essay generators is that the quality of the sample essays may be inconsistent or superficial. Since they are produced automatically without human nuance or depth of knowledge, some points made could be irrelevant, one-dimensional or even factually inaccurate. Teachers would undoubtedly see through a paper that was written algorithmically versus one with a student’s genuine analysis and voice. While utilizing basic templates may seem like a fast solution, it often does more harm than good for a student’s learning and their instructor’s assessment of their abilities.
The program EssayTyper addresses some of these ethical and quality concerns to an extent by not producing or storing essays, but rather emulating the typing process in real-time. When students enter a prompt, EssayTyper will automatically generate sentences related to the topic at a steady pace, as if a person were actively writing. No permanent essay is created—the text disappears once scrolling away from it. While EssayTyper may help students brainstorm potential directions and relax anxieties over a blank page, instructors would recognize an essentially meaningless paper composed of disconnected ideas had been submitted. The program serves more as a thought exercise than a legitimate writing aid or source of content.
Completely automatic essay generation programs that fully take over the writing process raise serious issues regarding plagiarism and demonstrating one’s own comprehension, research and analytical abilities. Tools focused more on editing assistance and providing guidance for self-composed writing, like Grammarly and PaperRater, allow students to do the bulk of creation while easing some structural or stylistic challenges. Even paper rating features should not be the sole metric for quality. For true learning and mastery of a subject, students are best served putting in substantive effort to craft their own original essays with teacher feedback rather than relying on algorithmic templates or aids that minimize independent work. With practice and perseverance, the writing process can become less daunting over time for most students.
As an alternative to programs that generate full essays or text on-demand, services like private tutoring can offer better support tailored to individual student needs. Online tutoring platforms connect students with experienced writers who provide one-on-one coaching, brainstorming, feedback and editing help to strengthen self-generated work. While paid services, tutors ensure content is wholly unique rather than recycled templates, and focus directly on developing the student’s own analytical skills, knowledge base and style through an interactive process. These types of resources not only facilitate better writing in the short term but also foster long-term improvement through direct guidance, modeling and reinforcement of key techniques and best practices.
While essay typing tools aim to ease students’ burdens, automatically-generated full papers undermine learning and violate standards of originality. More constructive alternatives involve editing support, rating guidance or private tutoring to enhance self-initiated writing abilities over time. With discipline and dedicated efforts to improve their literacy and comprehension through practice, assisted reflection and teacher reviews, students can make steady progress that serves them well in future writing challenges. The goal should be empowering independent thought and analysis, not circumventing effort through algorithmic replacement of human capacities, however well-intentioned some technical solutions have aimed to be. A balanced, self-directed approach best serves students’ long-term development and their instructors’ ability to properly assess skills.
Andrew Stroud