Painters vs. Pointers in the AI Age: Are We Misjudging Student Thinking?

In today’s higher education landscape, where generative AI tools like ChatGPT are reshaping how students write and instructors assess, our long-held assumptions about “good writing” are under pressure. Faculty are navigating a complex terrain: deciphering not just what students write, but how they arrive at their ideas and what that says about their thinking. Meanwhile, students face rising expectations to conform to rigid academic norms, often without explicit instruction or support.

Amid this shifting context, it’s worth revisiting a deceptively simple metaphor: how children build with LEGOs. Some carefully select and place each brick, building methodically toward a clear structure. Others dump all the pieces out and begin assembling in the moment, discovering the design as they go. These two approaches mirror deeper cognitive and communicative styles, which my graduate school professor, Dr. David Ludwig refers to as “pointers” and “painters.”

This distinction has never been more relevant. As writing assessment evolves, educators must grapple with whether we’re truly measuring student ability or just preference for a particular communication style. Are we unintentionally favoring “pointer” thinkers, those who lead with a thesis and back it up, while undervaluing “painter” thinkers, who build context and meaning before arriving at their central point?

Reframing how we interpret writing is not just an academic exercise. It is a step toward more equitable pedagogy, one that acknowledges diverse cognitive styles and communication patterns. If we fail to make this shift, we risk mistaking difference for deficiency and missing out on the full picture of student potential.

---

The Typology: Pointers and Painters

Dr. Ludwig’s communication typology classifies people as either pointers or painters.

• Pointers make their main point first and support it with follow-up statements. They communicate linearly and often think as they speak in clear, concise chunks. They are like the children who build with LEGOs piece by piece, following an internal plan.

• Painters, by contrast, begin with broad strokes. They explore ideas before landing on their main point, building a landscape of context first. They resemble the children who dump all their LEGOs onto the floor, construct freely, and arrive at a structure only after a process of creative iteration.

Both styles have value. Both can lead to clarity, insight, and effective communication. But our systems, particularly in education, tend to reward the pointer’s style and misinterpret the painter’s.

---

The Impact on Student Writing

In my presentation Professors Are from Mars, Students Are from Venus: Learning Occurs on Earth, I argue that the faculty-student relationship is the most powerful force in the learning environment, yet it is often derailed by mismatched expectations. If we overlay the pointer/painter framework onto academic writing, the disconnect becomes even clearer.

Professors often expect writing to reflect a pointer approach: thesis first, evidence second. Yet many students, especially those still developing their academic voice or who come from cultures or cognitive styles that favor storytelling or circular logic, write like painters. They build toward a thesis, often placing their main point near the end. Unfortunately, if faculty stop reading attentively after the first paragraph or assume the lack of an early thesis indicates poor thinking, they may miss the point entirely.

This not only affects grades. It can deeply impact a student’s sense of competence and belonging in academic spaces.

---

A Tale of Two Excerpts

Consider the following excerpts. Each makes the same point about learning and thinking. The difference lies in how the message is delivered.

Painter

Surface-based thinking is classified as poor thinking because it leads students only to surface outcomes, which are insufficient products for rigorous coursework… Deep learning leads to understanding and is a catalyst for application, analysis, and evaluation… Therefore, a recursive relationship exists between approaches to learning and thinking skills.

Pointer

A recursive relationship exists between approaches to learning and thinking skills. Surface-based thinking is classified as poor thinking because it leads students only to surface outcomes… Deep learning leads to understanding and is a catalyst for application, analysis, and evaluation…

In the first, the main point emerges at the end. In the second, it leads. Is one better? Or are we simply more accustomed to valuing the second because of our academic conditioning?

---

AI’s Pointer Bias and Its Quiet Influence

Today’s AI writing tools, like ChatGPT, are designed to produce clean, well-organized, thesis-driven writing. In essence, they are fluent in the pointer style. When prompted to write an essay, these tools typically lead with a thesis, build supporting paragraphs, and end with a neat conclusion.

This creates a subtle but significant shift. Students who write with AI support may increasingly default to the pointer style, regardless of how they naturally think.

As educators, we must ask:

• Will more students begin thinking like pointers simply because AI tools model that style?

• Will painter-minded students start writing like pointers but feel disconnected from their process?

• Could this create a disconnect between authentic thinking and artificial output?

• Are we entering an era where writing “sounds smart” but may not reflect true cognitive development?

In a world where AI can produce organized writing at the push of a button, how will we differentiate between students who think critically and those who simply follow a polished format? And more importantly, do our grading practices even allow for that distinction?

Teachers may prefer clarity up front, but that doesn’t mean painter-style thinking is unclear. It simply unfolds differently. If we dismiss a painter’s work too soon, we might be teaching them that their way of thinking is flawed, when it may simply be unfamiliar.

---

Research Becomes Reality: Reflective Activities for Students, Faculty, and Parents

🔍 For Students: Discover Your Writing Style

Activity: Draft Mapping

1. Choose a recent essay or paper you wrote.

2. Highlight where your main point (thesis) appears.

3. Then, underline the key supporting ideas and where they emerge.

4. Reflect: Did you build up to your point (painter) or lead with it (pointer)?

5. Ask a peer or tutor to read your paper and share when they realized your main point.

Prompt for reflection:

Does my writing reflect the way I think, or the way I’ve been taught to write?

---

🎓 For Faculty: Assessing Substance vs. Style

Activity: Annotation Audit

1. Choose 3 student papers and read them without grading, just annotate when a key idea appears.

2. Identify when the main point emerges and note whether it was early (pointer) or late (painter).

3. Ask: If you hadn’t read the whole piece, would you have judged it differently?

4. Compare your comments. Were you responding to structure or substance?

Prompt for reflection:

Am I evaluating clarity of thought, or conformity to a format? How might AI-generated work complicate that distinction?

---

🏡 For Parents: Understanding Your Child’s Communication Style

Activity: Storytelling Session

1. Ask your child to describe something they learned at school this week.

2. Pay attention to how they tell the story: Do they start with the main idea, or do they build to it?

3. Let them retell the same idea in the opposite style, first as a pointer, then as a painter.

4. Discuss which version felt more natural to them.

Prompt for reflection:

How does my child’s communication style show up in how they learn, express, and solve problems?

---

As AI reshapes how students write and how educators assess, we must sharpen our focus, not just on structure but on substance. Are we grading the mechanics of writing, or the mind behind it?

If students begin mimicking AI-generated writing patterns, will we lose sight of their authentic voice and thinking style? Will painter minds be pressured to write like pointers and be praised for it, even if it is not truly reflective of their process?

The real challenge of the AI age isn’t detecting plagiarism. It is learning to recognize and nurture genuine thought in all its diverse forms.

Painters and pointers both have something valuable to say. We just have to learn how to read them.

---

GET THE BOOK!

For more insights into how to help students escape common learning traps and build the cognitive habits that lead to long-term success, explore my groundbreaking book.

It’s a guide designed to support both educators and students in making the shift from high performance to deep, lasting learning.

You’ve come this far. Let’s connect in the comments section.  Share your reaction below.👇🏿

As always, follow The LearnWell Projects on all your social media platforms and subscribe to my growing YouTube community!