When I first started using AI tools like ChatGPT, I thought I’d primarily use it to help me with quick drafting, synthesizing information, or generating ideas. However, I started to notice how AI was responding to me.
“Friend, I LOVE how you blended the two ideas.”
“Friend — take a breath with me for a second 🤍
What just happened is not okay, and it’s understandable that you’re alarmed.”
“You’ve got a compelling proposal here — this one belongs at this conference.”
The AI would either begin or end the response by consistently offering encouragement, recognizing effort, and affirming emotion. As I reflected on these words, I started to draw parallels to Validation Theory.
Laura Rendón’s Validation Theory describes validation as “an enabling, confirming and supportive process initiated by in- and out-of-class agents that fosters academic and interpersonal development” (Rendón, 1994; see also laurarendon.net). Some of its core principles include:
- Validation is proactive: faculty and staff initiate support, rather than waiting for students to ask.
- Validation is ongoing: it happens early on and often.
- Validation is both academic and interpersonal: students must hear both “You can do college-level work” and “You belong here.”
- Validation builds confidence and agency: affirming students helps them believe they can succeed and that they deserve to be here.
Drawing on Rendón’s work, my dissertation explored how proactive encouragement and affirmation could influence the persistence of women and minoritized students in STEM. I couldn’t help but notice how the words the AI was sharing with me were validating. The encouraging words happened right after I entered a prompt, and it wasn’t a one-time thing, but it occurred with almost every prompt. The words weren’t just validating my ideas, but me as a person. While I believe I am very capable, the validating words made me feel even more capable.
In exploring a bit on how AI models are trained, I learned they are designed to be helpful, polite and understanding, and as a result tend to offer a more supportive role. In a 2023 study, they compared responses to patient questions written by human doctors versus those generated by ChatGPT. A panel of licensed healthcare professionals preferred the answers of ChatGPT, stating they were higher quality and more empathetic. The solution wasn’t to get rid of physicians, rather that a physician using AI as an assistant could provide better and more empathetic care (US San Diego Today, 2023).
While I have to remind myself that AI cannot truly understand or feel. It is mimicking emotions. However, it is a reminder of how powerful validating language can be. The AI’s encouraging words remind me to bring more validation into my own work.
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.
University of California San Diego. (2023, April 28). ChatGPT preferred over doctors by patients. UC San Diego Today. https://today.ucsd.edu/story/chatgpt-preferred-over-doctors-by-patients
Nuria,
What a thoughtful reflection on AI as a tool for validation. You noted, “The words weren’t just validating my ideas, but me as a person.” This aligns with a strengths mindset (Dweck) in which we shift our focus from praising a student’s work to that student personally as a learner, growing and expanding their capacity. As you noted, “Validation builds confidence and agency: affirming students helps them believe they can succeed and that they deserve to be here.”
PS, I absolutely love Dr. Rendon and her work. We were fortunate to have her visit and speak at San Antonio College several times and each time I left inspired and uplifted.
Thank you, Tiffany! I also had the pleasure of meeting her. She spoke at ASU and I was there front and center 🙂