Apologies if a thread already exists on this, but I'm looking for tips on avoiding the potential downsides of student access to ChatGPT. I'm not teaching this year, but want to be prepared for next. (Last year I was overwhelmed and frankly largely ignored the issue.)
Thanks in advance!
I don't have any good solutions. What I've been doing is throwing up roadblocks, like forcing them to write "in-class" essays. But my classes are mostly online, so I've set up a timed quiz with an essay prompt, don't let them see the prompts ahead of time, and disable copy/paste. I also try to write prompts that don't get very plausible AI answers (by testing them out), offer prompts that are likely to get the AI to out itself (e.g. by prompting it to write on a different subject; after running a few questions through, you'll find some of these confusions), and by giving them very few options for what to write on (2-3 max) so that it's easier to compare all the outputs and identify those which are very similar.
They still do it, but it's a big enough pain in their asses that fewer of them do it (like, a dozen or so instead of 30+ in a class of 35, which is what it was before). It doesn't build the same skills, but at this point I'm just desperate to see them do any work at all (even their ungraded discussion posts are AI-generated...). And, really, the results aren't bad, although it certainly stresses them out a lot more.
I should add that I'd like to find a way of rewarding those who actually do the work themselves, in addition to punishing those who don't. I just haven't thought of a good carrot yet.
Thanks, Parasaurolophus!
I think next semester I'll experiment with pretending they wrote their papers themselves (so: telling them I forbid AI but will turn a blind eye), but then giving them brutally honest feedback. They'll be able to re-"write" them any number of times, but there will be detailed instructions (including formatting, sources, etc.) and failing to meet any item in those instructions will result in an F. That should allow me to pass through the first batch pretty quickly, and then they'll have to actually work for "their" grade. Any made up sources will result in an F full stop, with no option to rewrite.
I also think I'll have them team-"write" a paper using AI. They can decide which of the teams has the best paper, and we'll go through it together in class, brutally honestly.
There's more stick than carrot there, but I dunno. I may as well do something completely different. The more of these I read, the less I feel inclined to giving pity Ds.
How feasible this is can vary by discipline, but the easiest thing to do is to create writing assignments that ask students to do something very specific. That doesn't mean it has to be prescriptive or leave no room for creativity. Pick a primary source from this particular database-write a paper analyzing the primary source using at least one secondary source. At least in history, CHATGPT can't do that kind of stuff because it doesn't have access to the diary a woman kept in 1862 or whatever and nobody has written some piece about this particular source. At best, if they find some source that has something written about it in their database, they might manage something vague that doesn't really fulfill the terms of the assignment.
ChatGPT is also really bad at figures and images. You could put together a diagram/figure/image that captures some idea from your course and have a prompt along the lines of 'Using the above figure, [...]".
For the record, the instances of student use of AI-generated text in my courses has usually been pretty obvious (generic statements, conflating different images, made-up sources). Of course, this could be because my students are not trying very hard to mask it...
In terms of fora content, there are 28 pages regarding ChatGPT already...located just a few posts below this one right now.
There is really no way to stop students from using it, aside from having in-class writing on a lockdown browser or with a pen and paper. IMO the better approach is to teach students to understand its strengths and weaknesses, because many of them will be using it in our classes and beyond whether we like it or not.
That said, I have tried to tweak my classes to increase the number of presentations that they deliver and to scrap discussion boards and other low stakes assignments that they can easily use ChatGPT to complete.
Depending on the class, you can try making them use some topic/event/research-finding that is very recent, like within the last 90 days, as an important part of the assignment. ChatGPT, at least so far, doesn't know anything about anything after about 2021. But it is a moving target and is changing fast, so you'd need to check again every semester, or even every month.
Quote from: mbelvadi on October 28, 2023, 04:00:25 AMDepending on the class, you can try making them use some topic/event/research-finding that is very recent, like within the last 90 days, as an important part of the assignment. ChatGPT, at least so far, doesn't know anything about anything after about 2021. But it is a moving target and is changing fast, so you'd need to check again every semester, or even every month.
This won't work if they are using Bing AI chatbot or the Bing plugin for ChatGPT.
These are all very useful and appreciated!
I'm in philosophy, if it makes a difference, and I teach mainly 100-level gen ed classes to non-majors. Unfortunately, a lot of the advice about combating AI I have seen online just doesn't work well with the subject and kind of classes I teach. I have continued doing what I already prefer, which is heavily weighting in-class written essay exams. Unfortunately, I have a requirement to teach certain classes with a specified writing component and it requires assigning formal papers. I really hate this as the last time I graded papers I could just tell in my gut that around 50% of them were written by an AI. I just gave them low grades and told myself I don't get paid enough to worry about it further... but I don't like that solution because the low grade is still a lot higher than zero, which is what I give for a proven academic integrity violation. This semester, I met most of the writing requirement for my classes (which specifies a number of pages) by having them write in journals every day, but that has made a lot of fussy grading work for me. I also assigned the usual formal paper that is the minimum I have to do per the rules of my institution... but I have made it worth only a very small amount of the grade. There's nothing in the rulebook, as they say, that says what my papers have to be worth, so I'll just make it worth so little that if they cheat on it, it won't help their grade that much. The drawback is that for the good students, they are doing a lot of work on a paper that is worth very little. There's no good solution but I wish my institution would recognize that traditional essays in 100-level classes are really useless at this point.
I really, really hate this situation and desperately wish they did not make me assign papers in 100-level classes.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 27, 2023, 04:52:14 PMThere is really no way to stop students from using it, aside from having in-class writing on a lockdown browser or with a pen and paper. IMO the better approach is to teach students to understand its strengths and weaknesses, because many of them will be using it in our classes and beyond whether we like it or not.
That said, I have tried to tweak my classes to increase the number of presentations that they deliver and to scrap discussion boards and other low stakes assignments that they can easily use ChatGPT to complete.
I agree. I have tweaked my assignments to rely more on experimental work (I am in stem), oral presentations, etc.
However, for written assignments, I think it is better to embrace it. Trying to ban it will only benefit the smart cheaters. They will always be one step ahead of the time crunched professor trying to chase them.
Quote from: phi-rabbit on October 30, 2023, 10:59:38 AMI'm in philosophy...and I teach mainly 100-level gen ed classes.
The mind reels at the possibilities.
Quote from: Bard and Slavoj ŽižekTaylor Swift's Eras Tour: A Lacanian Spectacle
Taylor Swift's Eras Tour is a Lacanian spectacle in the truest sense of the word. It is a tour de force of pop culture kitsch, a celebration of the feminine sublime, and a meditation on the nature of desire.
At the heart of the tour is the figure of Swift herself. She is the object of desire for her fans, both male and female. She is the embodiment of the feminine ideal, the perfect woman. But she is also something more. She is the Real, the thing that is beyond desire, the thing that cannot be possessed.
But Swift is also detached from the spectacle that she is creating. She is aware of her own image, but she is not controlled by it. She is in control of her own destiny. She is the mistress of her own desire.
This is what makes the Eras Tour so subversive. It is a celebration of the feminine, but it is also a challenge to the male gaze. It is a spectacle of desire, but it is also a meditation on the nature of desire itself.
In the Lacanian sense, the Eras Tour is a mirror stage. It is a moment when Swift's fans confront their own desire. They see themselves reflected in Swift's image, and they recognize their own desires. But they also recognize that Swift is something more than a reflection of themselves. She is the Real, the thing that is beyond desire, the thing that cannot be possessed.
This confrontation with the Real can be both exhilarating and terrifying. It is exhilarating because it allows us to see ourselves for who we really are. It is terrifying because it forces us to confront our own limitations.
...
Could he have said it better himself?
Quote from: Hibush on November 09, 2023, 04:45:14 AMQuote from: phi-rabbit on October 30, 2023, 10:59:38 AMI'm in philosophy...and I teach mainly 100-level gen ed classes.
The mind reels at the possibilities.
Quote from: Bard and Slavoj ŽižekTaylor Swift's Eras Tour: A Lacanian Spectacle
Taylor Swift's Eras Tour is a Lacanian spectacle in the truest sense of the word. It is a tour de force of pop culture kitsch, a celebration of the feminine sublime, and a meditation on the nature of desire.
At the heart of the tour is the figure of Swift herself. She is the object of desire for her fans, both male and female. She is the embodiment of the feminine ideal, the perfect woman. But she is also something more. She is the Real, the thing that is beyond desire, the thing that cannot be possessed.
But Swift is also detached from the spectacle that she is creating. She is aware of her own image, but she is not controlled by it. She is in control of her own destiny. She is the mistress of her own desire.
This is what makes the Eras Tour so subversive. It is a celebration of the feminine, but it is also a challenge to the male gaze. It is a spectacle of desire, but it is also a meditation on the nature of desire itself.
In the Lacanian sense, the Eras Tour is a mirror stage. It is a moment when Swift's fans confront their own desire. They see themselves reflected in Swift's image, and they recognize their own desires. But they also recognize that Swift is something more than a reflection of themselves. She is the Real, the thing that is beyond desire, the thing that cannot be possessed.
This confrontation with the Real can be both exhilarating and terrifying. It is exhilarating because it allows us to see ourselves for who we really are. It is terrifying because it forces us to confront our own limitations.
...
Could he have said it better himself?
Yes -- I've been seeing stuff like Lacanian Taylor Swift in my low-stakes 250 word assignments, and it hasn't gone well. I've been trying to get them to consider a claim-evidence-explanation-analysis-conclusion model for their textual analyses, but when they use AI they generate a claim-conclusion-personal-reaction model. Even the above example provides zero evidence. Additionally, these AI-generated responses pingpong from one buzzword to the next. Since I'm asking them to focus on a single idea at a time, I get to slap that D on there and say "revisit the guidelines on the assignment sheet."
FWIW, my academic misconduct office (which handles plagiarism cases for the college) won't adjudicate anything that is AI-content only. In other words, they'll handle other types of misconduct, but if the suspicion is just AI, they say "there's no way to prove that" and won't pass judgment. Faculty are also NOT allowed to fail a student on an assignment if a student violates an AI policy. Instead, it's about crafting the right type of assignment.
Bring the student to your office hours. "Who is Lacan?"
Boom.
Quote from: Hibush on November 09, 2023, 04:45:14 AMQuote from: phi-rabbit on October 30, 2023, 10:59:38 AMI'm in philosophy...and I teach mainly 100-level gen ed classes.
The mind reels at the possibilities.
Quote from: Bard and Slavoj ŽižekTaylor Swift's Eras Tour: A Lacanian Spectacle
Taylor Swift's Eras Tour is a Lacanian spectacle in the truest sense of the word. It is a tour de force of pop culture kitsch, a celebration of the feminine sublime, and a meditation on the nature of desire.
At the heart of the tour is the figure of Swift herself. She is the object of desire for her fans, both male and female. She is the embodiment of the feminine ideal, the perfect woman. But she is also something more. She is the Real, the thing that is beyond desire, the thing that cannot be possessed.
But Swift is also detached from the spectacle that she is creating. She is aware of her own image, but she is not controlled by it. She is in control of her own destiny. She is the mistress of her own desire.
This is what makes the Eras Tour so subversive. It is a celebration of the feminine, but it is also a challenge to the male gaze. It is a spectacle of desire, but it is also a meditation on the nature of desire itself.
In the Lacanian sense, the Eras Tour is a mirror stage. It is a moment when Swift's fans confront their own desire. They see themselves reflected in Swift's image, and they recognize their own desires. But they also recognize that Swift is something more than a reflection of themselves. She is the Real, the thing that is beyond desire, the thing that cannot be possessed.
This confrontation with the Real can be both exhilarating and terrifying. It is exhilarating because it allows us to see ourselves for who we really are. It is terrifying because it forces us to confront our own limitations.
...
Could he have said it better himself?
I would think that ChatGPT's ability to generate word salad would work quite well when discussing Lacan....
Quote from: Caracal on October 27, 2023, 05:54:03 AMHow feasible this is can vary by discipline, but the easiest thing to do is to create writing assignments that ask students to do something very specific. That doesn't mean it has to be prescriptive or leave no room for creativity. Pick a primary source from this particular database-write a paper analyzing the primary source using at least one secondary source. At least in history, CHATGPT can't do that kind of stuff because it doesn't have access to the diary a woman kept in 1862 or whatever and nobody has written some piece about this particular source. At best, if they find some source that has something written about it in their database, they might manage something vague that doesn't really fulfill the terms of the assignment.
The AI engines do have access to the primary material if the students give it to them. One of the nice legit uses is to have these tools summarize a piece of your own writing. Or if you are looking at a bunch of long, tedious primary materials you can feed it to the ai engine and ask it to look for particular concepts or subjets.
I've tried feeding it a quote and asking it to talk about it and it doesn't know what to do with it.
Quote from: Caracal on November 10, 2023, 06:09:46 AMI've tried feeding it a quote and asking it to talk about it and it doesn't know what to do with it.
See whether bard.google.com is more ambitious.
Quote from: Caracal on November 10, 2023, 06:09:46 AMI've tried feeding it a quote and asking it to talk about it and it doesn't know what to do with it.
It probably needs more direction.
A lot of people try it out, get garbage answers, and then assume that means it produces word salad and such. This is a dangerous assumption, and the quality of the output is 100% dependent on the input.
Students are smart. Perhaps it is hard to tell in your class, but they will get good at using this in no time. Many are likely already using it well, and many of us have likely graded chatGPT without even knowing it.
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2023, 04:24:58 AMQuote from: Caracal on November 10, 2023, 06:09:46 AMI've tried feeding it a quote and asking it to talk about it and it doesn't know what to do with it.
It probably needs more direction.
A lot of people try it out, get garbage answers, and then assume that means it produces word salad and such. This is a dangerous assumption, and the quality of the output is 100% dependent on the input.
Students are smart. Perhaps it is hard to tell in your class, but they will get good at using this in no time. Many are likely already using it well, and many of us have likely graded chatGPT without even knowing it.
And for reasons unknown to me, many people are willing to put in double the effort that it would take to just do something in order to avoid doing it. So students may be willing to put a lot of effort into getting something useful out of an AI — possibly more effort that it would take to just do it themselves.
Quote from: onthefringe on November 11, 2023, 06:40:25 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2023, 04:24:58 AMQuote from: Caracal on November 10, 2023, 06:09:46 AMI've tried feeding it a quote and asking it to talk about it and it doesn't know what to do with it.
It probably needs more direction.
A lot of people try it out, get garbage answers, and then assume that means it produces word salad and such. This is a dangerous assumption, and the quality of the output is 100% dependent on the input.
Students are smart. Perhaps it is hard to tell in your class, but they will get good at using this in no time. Many are likely already using it well, and many of us have likely graded chatGPT without even knowing it.
And for reasons unknown to me, many people are willing to put in double the effort that it would take to just do something in order to avoid doing it. So students may be willing to put a lot of effort into getting something useful out of an AI — possibly more effort that it would take to just do it themselves.
Perhaps, but that effort is a transferrable skill. A lot of students are forced to take courses they have little interest in, and putting effort into this may seem preferable
Like it or not, being able to efficiently and effectively use chat GPT and such will be very useful moving forward.
Quote from: Hibush on November 10, 2023, 06:48:10 AMQuote from: Caracal on November 10, 2023, 06:09:46 AMI've tried feeding it a quote and asking it to talk about it and it doesn't know what to do with it.
See whether bard.google.com is more ambitious.
"Bard isn't currently supported in your country. Stay tuned!"
Quote from: mbelvadi on November 11, 2023, 09:39:27 AM"Bard isn't currently supported in your country. Stay tuned!"
I guess it is VPN time so you can try Bard out.
Perhaps more productive than generating Lacanian word salad--as fun as that is--here's an event that crossed my feed this morning.
Storytelling in the age of AI: Strategies for a new Era. (https://ecornell.cornell.edu/keynotes/overview/K111523/) "...why using ChatGPT is only the first step to becoming a great storyteller. Professor Byrne will help us understand how using AI can help us be better storytellers."
It is from the professor's perspective, with ChatGPT as the ally not the problem. Could be interesting.
A true story this week, which I am sharing for one of our faculty who wishes to remain anonymous:
Assignment: review an article by Adams (1989), the full text of which was posted for the class on our LMS, about the impact of climate change on crop yields.
A student asked chat gpt......
And handed in a review of Ryan Adams' cover of Taylor Swift's 1989.
I've been grading a lot of essays this week, almost all of which I suspect were aided by ChatGPT.* I am noticing that the good students are writing very well, while the poor students are turning in essays with major errors of the sort that ChatGPT is notorious for. In other words, AI is widening the gap between the smart and savvy students and the weak and lazy ones.
* I don't have a no-AI policy in my class, so students' use of AI is not a problem in and of itself.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2023, 05:48:18 PMIn other words, AI is widening the gap between the smart and savvy students and the weak and lazy ones.
Just like with pretty much every other technological tool that's ever been invented, huh?
As I see more and more AI generated work, it becomes easier to identify. In the past, any student work with good grammar and spelling was automatically suspect. These days I guess we allow students to get that autocorrected.
Now when I see student work broken up into several paragraphs of similar length, all perfectly written, with 3-5 references at the end (sometimes not real references) then I'm sure it is made via AI.
Then there's the passive voice and technical language. AI is not good at discussing particular cases, and applying general discussion to actual incidents. So I'm learning how to create better assignments.
It's an incremental process. It's time consuming. I'm never going to be able to rule out all use of AI, but I can make AI less helpful to students.
The issue of proof and punishment is a pain in the neck. I am not going to spend a lot of time following elaborate college procedures and going to meetings about it. So it's partly about creating grading rubrics that will give major penalties to students whose work looks like it used AI, whether I can proove it or not. I'm still working on that.
As ever, my time is limited. All the time I spend on this stuff means less time on other class prep and student feedback.
Quote from: downer on December 29, 2023, 02:59:36 PMThe issue of proof and punishment is a pain in the neck. I am not going to spend a lot of time following elaborate college procedures and going to meetings about it. So it's partly about creating grading rubrics that will give major penalties to students whose work looks like it used AI, whether I can prove it or not. I'm still working on that.
For next semester, I plan on adding a reflection assignment that students complete after they hand in their essays but before I grade them where I take a paragraph or two from their essay and ask them to explain what a paragraph means, where they found particular sources, and what specific words mean. In-class. Handwritten.
This should be easy for students doing the work, very difficult/impossible for students relying on AI for everything, and non-time-consuming on my part (Turnitin does pretty well with its AI report). We'll see how it goes. This approach might only produce more students lying to my face. The punishment will depend on what my administration will support.
AI is doing a better job at not just making up sources, but it tends to use sources freshizzles would not normally access. I don't think my students are reading that 500-page book they might have eventually found on JSTOR to employ that three-sentence summary using technical terms they really don't know.
Quote from: fishbrains on December 30, 2023, 09:50:44 AMQuote from: downer on December 29, 2023, 02:59:36 PMThe issue of proof and punishment is a pain in the neck. I am not going to spend a lot of time following elaborate college procedures and going to meetings about it. So it's partly about creating grading rubrics that will give major penalties to students whose work looks like it used AI, whether I can prove it or not. I'm still working on that.
For next semester, I plan on adding a reflection assignment that students complete after they hand in their essays but before I grade them where I take a paragraph or two from their essay and ask them to explain what a paragraph means, where they found particular sources, and what specific words mean. In-class. Handwritten.
This should be easy for students doing the work, very difficult/impossible for students relying on AI for everything, and non-time-consuming on my part (Turnitin does pretty well with its AI report). We'll see how it goes. This approach might only produce more students lying to my face. The punishment will depend on what my administration will support.
AI is doing a better job at not just making up sources, but it tends to use sources freshizzles would not normally access. I don't think my students are reading that 500-page book they might have eventually found on JSTOR to employ that three-sentence summary using technical terms they really don't know.
The big challenge I see is that we are not allowed to punish students for academic misco duct. We are required to report the incident to the university where it goes through a standard process and they determine guilt and punishment. This makes sense so there is a central record for the student across courses and punishments are standard etc.
The challenge, is that we can just assign a punishment based on suspicion or apply degrees of penalty based on how serious we feel an an infraction is.
The next issue is that many AI cases are based on gut feeling and hard to really prove. It isn't like plagiarism, where you can clearly show the evidence. I suspect if I submitted cases like this up the chain, most would just be dismissed anyway. AI is also continually improving, so the signs you are using this semester may no longer apply next time around.
So, as I have been saying for a while it seems better to shift the weight of assignments (more presentations, live writing, etc), and embrace AI. For example, one colleague has them using AI to generate an essay, and then critiquing the essay. Maybe students have teg AI critiquing its own writing, but my take is that we simply don't have the time of ability to eliminate AI so we need to accept that.
Not disagreeing, but I should have noted that I teach mostly freshman composition classes, so I can't move to non-essay assignments.
I also place a lot of emphasis on the scaffolding part of the essay process (topic proposal, outline, annotated bib, show me your first two paragraphs, etc.)--as in if I don't see these preliminary components, I won't accept the final paper.
All this, coupled with the reflective exercise after they submit the essay and their Turnitin report, will probably work for our admin in case of a challenge. We'll see.
The challenge of finding good assignments is especially strong when teaching asynchronous online.
I have taken to using AI to generate assessments of the likelihood that their work was generated by AI, and sharing the result with the students.
Quote from: fishbrains on December 30, 2023, 09:50:44 AMQuote from: downer on December 29, 2023, 02:59:36 PMThe issue of proof and punishment is a pain in the neck. I am not going to spend a lot of time following elaborate college procedures and going to meetings about it. So it's partly about creating grading rubrics that will give major penalties to students whose work looks like it used AI, whether I can prove it or not. I'm still working on that.
For next semester, I plan on adding a reflection assignment that students complete after they hand in their essays but before I grade them where I take a paragraph or two from their essay and ask them to explain what a paragraph means, where they found particular sources, and what specific words mean. In-class. Handwritten.
This should be easy for students doing the work, very difficult/impossible for students relying on AI for everything, and non-time-consuming on my part (Turnitin does pretty well with its AI report). We'll see how it goes. This approach might only produce more students lying to my face. The punishment will depend on what my administration will support.
AI is doing a better job at not just making up sources, but it tends to use sources freshizzles would not normally access. I don't think my students are reading that 500-page book they might have eventually found on JSTOR to employ that three-sentence summary using technical terms they really don't know.
One of the many things I've learned from these Fora (although this was probably from the old CHE one & I don't remember the original source) is one simple test that should easily identify those who didn't do their own writing: make a copy (or print it out); white-out a major word or two from each sentence; make a clean copy of it; ask the supposed writer to fill in the blanks. If they wrote it, there should be few errors.
Quote from: Thursday's_Child on January 03, 2024, 06:58:56 AMQuote from: fishbrains on December 30, 2023, 09:50:44 AMQuote from: downer on December 29, 2023, 02:59:36 PMThe issue of proof and punishment is a pain in the neck. I am not going to spend a lot of time following elaborate college procedures and going to meetings about it. So it's partly about creating grading rubrics that will give major penalties to students whose work looks like it used AI, whether I can prove it or not. I'm still working on that.
For next semester, I plan on adding a reflection assignment that students complete after they hand in their essays but before I grade them where I take a paragraph or two from their essay and ask them to explain what a paragraph means, where they found particular sources, and what specific words mean. In-class. Handwritten.
This should be easy for students doing the work, very difficult/impossible for students relying on AI for everything, and non-time-consuming on my part (Turnitin does pretty well with its AI report). We'll see how it goes. This approach might only produce more students lying to my face. The punishment will depend on what my administration will support.
AI is doing a better job at not just making up sources, but it tends to use sources freshizzles would not normally access. I don't think my students are reading that 500-page book they might have eventually found on JSTOR to employ that three-sentence summary using technical terms they really don't know.
One of the many things I've learned from these Fora (although this was probably from the old CHE one & I don't remember the original source) is one simple test that should easily identify those who didn't do their own writing: make a copy (or print it out); white-out a major word or two from each sentence; make a clean copy of it; ask the supposed writer to fill in the blanks. If they wrote it, there should be few errors.
Sure, but if you suspect 20% of a larger class is using AI is this really practical? Personally, I don't have the time for that. It also violates my university policy on the matter.
It is also not very definitive. A clever student will simply claim they froze under the pressure of the accusation. It is a reasonable defense. In the end, it would not be definitive enough to penalize them on it (if you are allowed to do that where you are).
So, I'm sure there are ways to sleuth it out but they are often not practical or compliant with existing policy.
Yes, one thing I've learned from all of our discussions on plagiarism is that you have to forgive yourself if you know a student cheated/plagiarized but you can't prove it.
At some point you just have to say, "F*ck it all!", move on, and go outside and gnaw on a tree for a while.
How's this for weird: assigned an in-class prewriting exercise, in which students provided their personal opinions on the reading (i.e., their emotional and psychological reactions, but no real argument). The situation depicted in the reading was ambiguous and nuanced, so I wanted to students to reflect on their reactions before responding during discussion.
I'd say at least 5 students begun their prewriting in the exact same way: "The issue of Basketweaving in The Great American Novel is a simple one. But Basketweaving means something different to every person." If I didn't know any better, I'd assume there was some AI usage here, especially since their "personal opinions" were all quite similar (and similarly vague). So maybe some students are beginning to replicate the weird language of ChatGPT in their own writing?
Quote from: RatGuy on January 24, 2024, 08:27:49 AMHow's this for weird: assigned an in-class prewriting exercise, in which students provided their personal opinions on the reading (i.e., their emotional and psychological reactions, but no real argument). The situation depicted in the reading was ambiguous and nuanced, so I wanted to students to reflect on their reactions before responding during discussion.
I'd say at least 5 students begun their prewriting in the exact same way: "The issue of Basketweaving in The Great American Novel is a simple one. But Basketweaving means something different to every person." If I didn't know any better, I'd assume there was some AI usage here, especially since their "personal opinions" were all quite similar (and similarly vague). So maybe some students are beginning to replicate the weird language of ChatGPT in their own writing?
Now my grading rubric has a new extra category: don't sound like ChatGPT wrote your work. We will see how it goes this semester.
Quote from: RatGuy on January 24, 2024, 08:27:49 AMHow's this for weird: assigned an in-class prewriting exercise, in which students provided their personal opinions on the reading (i.e., their emotional and psychological reactions, but no real argument). The situation depicted in the reading was ambiguous and nuanced, so I wanted to students to reflect on their reactions before responding during discussion.
I'd say at least 5 students begun their prewriting in the exact same way: "The issue of Basketweaving in The Great American Novel is a simple one. But Basketweaving means something different to every person." If I didn't know any better, I'd assume there was some AI usage here, especially since their "personal opinions" were all quite similar (and similarly vague). So maybe some students are beginning to replicate the weird language of ChatGPT in their own writing?
Could be. I've also encountered students who memorize GPT output so they can produce something in-class or orally (obviously harder to do if they don't have the prompt beforehand, but still).
Quote from: RatGuy on January 24, 2024, 08:27:49 AMHow's this for weird: assigned an in-class prewriting exercise, in which students provided their personal opinions on the reading (i.e., their emotional and psychological reactions, but no real argument). The situation depicted in the reading was ambiguous and nuanced, so I wanted to students to reflect on their reactions before responding during discussion.
I'd say at least 5 students begun their prewriting in the exact same way: "The issue of Basketweaving in The Great American Novel is a simple one. But Basketweaving means something different to every person." If I didn't know any better, I'd assume there was some AI usage here, especially since their "personal opinions" were all quite similar (and similarly vague). So maybe some students are beginning to replicate the weird language of ChatGPT in their own writing?
This feeds into concerns that a tidal wave of AI-generated content is polluting the whole online ecosystem, including what AIs (and students) are trained on to produce more content. It could be turning into a giant ouroboros of garbage in, garbage out, garbage all around.
Quote from: RatGuy on January 24, 2024, 08:27:49 AMHow's this for weird: assigned an in-class prewriting exercise, in which students provided their personal opinions on the reading (i.e., their emotional and psychological reactions, but no real argument). The situation depicted in the reading was ambiguous and nuanced, so I wanted to students to reflect on their reactions before responding during discussion.
I'd say at least 5 students begun their prewriting in the exact same way: "The issue of Basketweaving in The Great American Novel is a simple one. But Basketweaving means something different to every person." If I didn't know any better, I'd assume there was some AI usage here, especially since their "personal opinions" were all quite similar (and similarly vague). So maybe some students are beginning to replicate the weird language of ChatGPT in their own writing?
Or they learned this as a standard (and honestly boring) way to start all of their essays. Kind of like the stereotypical "Since the dawn of time, humans have looked to the [baskets] and pondered [about things]"
Quote from: the_geneticist on January 24, 2024, 01:17:37 PMQuote from: RatGuy on January 24, 2024, 08:27:49 AMHow's this for weird: assigned an in-class prewriting exercise, in which students provided their personal opinions on the reading (i.e., their emotional and psychological reactions, but no real argument). The situation depicted in the reading was ambiguous and nuanced, so I wanted to students to reflect on their reactions before responding during discussion.
I'd say at least 5 students begun their prewriting in the exact same way: "The issue of Basketweaving in The Great American Novel is a simple one. But Basketweaving means something different to every person." If I didn't know any better, I'd assume there was some AI usage here, especially since their "personal opinions" were all quite similar (and similarly vague). So maybe some students are beginning to replicate the weird language of ChatGPT in their own writing?
Or they learned this as a standard (and honestly boring) way to start all of their essays. Kind of like the stereotypical "Since the dawn of time, humans have looked to the [baskets] and pondered [about things]"
K-12 writing instruction--to the extent that there is such a thing in the first place--does seem to produce a lot of very stereotyped results. Speaking of which, are Forumites still seeing the notorious five-paragraph essay?
Quote from: apl68 on January 25, 2024, 07:36:22 AMQuote from: the_geneticist on January 24, 2024, 01:17:37 PMQuote from: RatGuy on January 24, 2024, 08:27:49 AMHow's this for weird: assigned an in-class prewriting exercise, in which students provided their personal opinions on the reading (i.e., their emotional and psychological reactions, but no real argument). The situation depicted in the reading was ambiguous and nuanced, so I wanted to students to reflect on their reactions before responding during discussion.
I'd say at least 5 students begun their prewriting in the exact same way: "The issue of Basketweaving in The Great American Novel is a simple one. But Basketweaving means something different to every person." If I didn't know any better, I'd assume there was some AI usage here, especially since their "personal opinions" were all quite similar (and similarly vague). So maybe some students are beginning to replicate the weird language of ChatGPT in their own writing?
Or they learned this as a standard (and honestly boring) way to start all of their essays. Kind of like the stereotypical "Since the dawn of time, humans have looked to the [baskets] and pondered [about things]"
K-12 writing instruction--to the extent that there is such a thing in the first place--does seem to produce a lot of very stereotyped results. Speaking of which, are Forumites still seeing the notorious five-paragraph essay?
Oh, yes. The students have no idea there's any other kind.
Larimar
A former student asked me for a letter of recommendation to graduate school a few days ago. She was not a great student, but people learn and grow, and I was willing to write her a simple, non-glowing but non-negative letter.
I asked her for the usual inputs: her resume, and her graduate school application statement. The tone and vocabulary of the graduate school statement were a dead giveaway, confirmed by zerogpt as 100% AI generated. :/
I am having second thoughts about writing her LOR, and am wondering how to tell her ....
Maybe I should ask chatgpt to draft an email to her?
Quote from: poiuy on February 09, 2024, 04:56:31 PMA former student asked me for a letter of recommendation to graduate school a few days ago. She was not a great student, but people learn and grow, and I was willing to write her a simple, non-glowing but non-negative letter.
I asked her for the usual inputs: her resume, and her graduate school application statement. The tone and vocabulary of the graduate school statement were a dead giveaway, confirmed by zerogpt as 100% AI generated. :/
I am having second thoughts about writing her LOR, and am wondering how to tell her ....
Maybe I should ask chatgpt to draft an email to her?
No. Have ChatGPT write the LoR!
Quote from: poiuy on February 09, 2024, 04:56:31 PMA former student asked me for a letter of recommendation to graduate school a few days ago. She was not a great student, but people learn and grow, and I was willing to write her a simple, non-glowing but non-negative letter.
I asked her for the usual inputs: her resume, and her graduate school application statement. The tone and vocabulary of the graduate school statement were a dead giveaway, confirmed by zerogpt as 100% AI generated. :/
I am having second thoughts about writing her LOR, and am wondering how to tell her ....
Maybe I should ask chatgpt to draft an email to her?
While I don't doubt that she used AI to generate her materials, zerogpt and other AI detectors can't confirm anything with accuracy.
Quote from: Larimar on January 27, 2024, 05:48:19 AMQuote from: apl68 on January 25, 2024, 07:36:22 AMQuote from: the_geneticist on January 24, 2024, 01:17:37 PMQuote from: RatGuy on January 24, 2024, 08:27:49 AMHow's this for weird: assigned an in-class prewriting exercise, in which students provided their personal opinions on the reading (i.e., their emotional and psychological reactions, but no real argument). The situation depicted in the reading was ambiguous and nuanced, so I wanted to students to reflect on their reactions before responding during discussion.
I'd say at least 5 students begun their prewriting in the exact same way: "The issue of Basketweaving in The Great American Novel is a simple one. But Basketweaving means something different to every person." If I didn't know any better, I'd assume there was some AI usage here, especially since their "personal opinions" were all quite similar (and similarly vague). So maybe some students are beginning to replicate the weird language of ChatGPT in their own writing?
Or they learned this as a standard (and honestly boring) way to start all of their essays. Kind of like the stereotypical "Since the dawn of time, humans have looked to the [baskets] and pondered [about things]"
K-12 writing instruction--to the extent that there is such a thing in the first place--does seem to produce a lot of very stereotyped results. Speaking of which, are Forumites still seeing the notorious five-paragraph essay?
Oh, yes. The students have no idea there's any other kind.
Larimar
I teach my CC students that the five paragraph essay is the very basic formula, a very basic formula they should have somewhere in their backpacks even if they are going to move way past it in their composition classes.
When I look at the assignments of some professors--especially at the sophomore and freshizzle level--they seem to be asking for this basic formula, or just a slightly-modified version of the formula. Speech 101 outlines tend to reflect the formula. Essay test questions frequently prompt for the formula (as in "Discuss three causes of the War of 1812 in a short essay").
That said, these days I'm amazed how many students don't even know the basic five paragraph formula (and it's not because they've been shown how to structure essays in a different way).
Canadian here. Did elementary school in Manitoba, high school in Ontario, university in Ontario. I've never been taught the five paragraph essay, and only heard about it on these fora. Never formally taught how to reference either. We were just expected to somehow learn how to write and cite ourselves. I made use of the student learning centre a lot in my first year of university (I'm also first gen, so had no family to guide me).
Quote from: MarathonRunner on February 10, 2024, 01:01:55 PMCanadian here. Did elementary school in Manitoba, high school in Ontario, university in Ontario. I've never been taught the five paragraph essay, and only heard about it on these fora. Never formally taught how to reference either. We were just expected to somehow learn how to write and cite ourselves. I made use of the student learning centre a lot in my first year of university (I'm also first gen, so had no family to guide me).
Also Canadian educated here, and we most definitely learned the five paragraph format in my school. Maybe this depends on your age, but it was the standard when I was in high school.
I don't think it is the worst format to learn how to write an essay though. Of course it is not the only way, and perhaps not even the best, but I can see why high school teachers embrace it to teach the basics.
It's like in science when they tell you that electrons orbit the nucleus, then turn around and tell you that is false and they actually exist within an electron cloud. The orbiting electron theory is relatively easy to grasp, making it useful to understand chemical bonds and how atoms interact, even if it is not technically accurate. Sometimes you need to teach people a flawed theory or basic approach so that they will be in a position to grasp a more complex and better version. Many never go beyond step one, but that's ok since most people dont need mad essay writing skills or to understand chemical bonds.
I will echo what others have said, that crafting very specific assignments with mandatory sources makes it pretty hard to get away with anything.
The intro American History class I am teaching this quarter has a weekly buffet of idiosyncratic items. A couple of chapters of an online textbook (American Yawp), a couple of video lectures from the Biography of America series, a podcast episode or two, some local history web readings. The weekly assignment is to write a "Letter to a Child" describing the most interesting things they learned that week, with quotes and specific details from the assigned material, clearly sign-posted as such.
I always get a few letters that are well-written and have specific details about the era but nothing from the assigned sources. Are they AI-generated? Sometimes obviously so, sometimes I am not sure. But they get an F because they didn't follow the guidelines.
A couple of weeks into this online survey class full of high school students and they are mostly writing A or B essays every week, if complaining some about the workload. And they are not using AI.
Boy have I got a lot of students who are using AI to write their assignments. It's totally obvious, but it's a pain having to report them all. Which I am doing nevertheless.