Photo credit: www.higheredjobs.com
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced significant changes to the workforce and education sectors. Higher education institutions, in particular, are grappling with how to effectively adapt to these advancements. This has sparked vital discussions among educators about the use of AI detection tools and the integration of AI into educational assignments. Institutions are also looking for direction on how to develop policies that can keep pace with this rapidly evolving technology.
To better understand these challenges, I conversed with José Antonio Bowen and C. Edward Watson, co-authors of “Teaching with AI.” They believe that while AI will undoubtedly remain a constant in our lives, adapting to its presence primarily involves modifying curricula and teaching methodologies—areas where educators have considerable expertise. They assured me that faculty are equipped to handle this challenge. Below, I will summarize their insights on policy creation, the use of AI detectors, and practical strategies for adapting teaching practices in this new landscape.
Developing Institutional Policies
“Keeping AI policies current is a considerable challenge due to the rapid evolution of tools and student behaviors,” Watson noted. “My fundamental recommendation is to establish a committee that employs a shared governance approach to formulate an AI policy. However, once the initial draft is completed, that committee should continue to meet.”
He emphasized the importance of implementing the policy, monitoring its performance, and making adjustments as needed. Given the swift pace of technological advancements, this iterative process is crucial. While both Bowen and Watson acknowledge the difficulty of staying updated with AI developments, they stress that institutions must make the effort to do so.
To assist educational institutions in tracking these changes, the authors maintain a comprehensive list of AI models and tools, accessible through their resources.
“Engagement with students is key,” Bowen stated. “Recognize the rapid pace of these changes. We’re still in the initial phase of this technology evolution. It will stabilize at some point, but we’re not there yet.”
Debating the Use of AI Detectors
The proliferation of generative AI tools has been matched by the emergence of AI detection software.
When discussing the efficacy of these detection platforms, Watson remarked, “In my opinion, they are largely ineffective.”
Bowen supported this perspective, asserting, “There are more constructive methods we recommend than relying on AI detectors, as they tend to be punitive in nature.” Instead, as they elaborate in “Teaching with AI,” Bowen and Watson advocate for creating assignments that stipulate how and when AI can be utilized.
They caution that AI detectors differ fundamentally from plagiarism checkers, as they do not offer absolute proof of AI usage. These detectors analyze writing patterns and structures to assess the likelihood of AI involvement, but they can yield false positives.
“Numerous students have been incorrectly flagged for AI usage,” Watson shared. He expressed concern about the severe consequences of such mistakes, including the potential for students to withdraw from school, or even worse, face mental health issues stemming from the stress of wrongful allegations.
“The adverse outcomes of false accusations outweigh any potential benefits of claiming to catch academic dishonesty,” he stated.
Bowen argued that the use of AI detectors should be restricted until users receive proper training. “If someone lacks a clear understanding of how the technology functions and the potential harm it can cause, they should not utilize it,” he said.
If concerns about academic integrity persist, Bowen suggests considering factors such as opportunity, time constraints, and lack of motivation among students. “Students may resort to cheating when they feel overwhelmed or unclear about the value of the assignment,” he explained. “For instance, individuals don’t cheat at the gym because they understand the importance of their workouts.”
One feasible approach to reducing cheating is to implement flexible policies on assignment extensions. If students know they have the option of a grace period, they may be less inclined to resort to AI or online resources in a panic. “What if you allowed students a couple of days’ leeway on certain assignments without penalty?” Watson proposes. This flexibility could encourage students to do the work, thereby enhancing their learning experience and reducing incidences of dishonesty.
Moreover, fostering intrinsic motivation is essential. “Educators should clarify the significance of the learning process and explain the relevance of course content,” Bowen advised.
Rethinking Assignment Design
Overcoming anxiety surrounding AI involves a crucial mindset shift. Instead of fearing that AI might facilitate cheating or replace human effort, educators should explore how AI can serve as a valuable tool for both instructors and students.
Employers increasingly anticipate that students will harness AI to enhance their work. Rather than outright forbidding AI, Bowen and Watson propose crafting assignments that integrate AI as a supplementary resource.
“Many assignments can be structured to allow students to use AI to enhance their output or to improve the effectiveness of AI itself,” Bowen explained. They offer further insights on this approach in their book and on their website.
For instance, Watson recommended a writing assignment where students initially brainstorm with AI, write a preliminary draft independently, and subsequently seek AI feedback. It’s critical to explicitly inform students about which aspects of the assignment are AI-restricted and provide clear reasoning.
Maintaining a Positive Outlook
The swift advancement of AI undeniably poses challenges for higher education. While these changes require careful consideration, Bowen and Watson encourage educators to focus on the positive aspects.
“This is a significant trend with lasting implications that we can’t overlook,” Watson acknowledged. “While it represents a major shift in our approach to teaching across all disciplines, this primarily pertains to curricular and pedagogical adjustments. We possess the skills to adapt effectively.”
He added that AI can be beneficial for instructors by assisting in revising course work, generating lecture material, or even contributing to grading processes. Faculty members are encouraged to leverage AI to reclaim time for other responsibilities.
Conclusion
Bowen urges educators to remain engaged and proactive as AI technology continues to advance. “I cannot alter the course of technological development,” he admitted. “But if we neglect to teach ethics and responsible usage of these tools, who will?”
AI is continuously reshaping the landscape of education, work, and society as a whole, though its long-term impacts remain uncertain. Bowen likened this evolution to the acceptance of automatic transmissions in cars.
“Today, we don’t see using an automatic transmission as a moral failing,” he remarked. “While we may rely on technology, we still steer our course. The true impact of AI as a cognitive tool is still to be determined, but it likely involves a similar form of cognitive offloading. We must be engaged in this dialogue, guiding our students as we navigate these technological changes, as it will significantly influence the future of creativity and human potential.”
Source
www.higheredjobs.com