Welcome to the new (and now only) Fora!
Started by Parasaurolophus, August 04, 2023, 01:51:23 PM
QuoteLet's be clear about the sole reason why people think that ChatGPT's powers will transform pedagogy: cheating will be easier. (I will focus on ChatGPT only here, although there are and will be other LLM systems that can perform—or outperform—the functions ChatGPT has). Students, rushing to complete assignments, will simply spend an hour or so refining their prompt to ChatGPT, and then ChatGPT will spit out a good enough essay. At that point, the student merely needs to massage it so that it better conforms to the instructor's expectations. It seems a lot easier than spending scores of hours reading articles and books, participating in class discussion, paying attention to lectures, and, finally, composing the essay. The charge many people make is that the average student will give in and use ChatGPT as much as possible in place of doing the required work.In short, students will cheat their way to an A. Or, to put it more gently, they will cheat their way to a completed assignment. It follows that because they will use ChatGPT to cheat, students will not get as much out of school as they otherwise would have. Call this the cheating threat to learning.The only solution, it has been suggested, is that we must force our students to be free to learn. The only available tactics, many seem to think, are either aggressively policing student essays or switching to in-class high stakes testing. On this view, we're supposed to be high-tech plagiarism cops armed with big exams.But how much responsibility do teachers have to invigilate their students in order to prevent cheating? Not much, I think. And so we do not have a particularly robust responsibility to police our students' usage of ChatGPT. So we should reject the idea that we should be high-tech plagiarism cops. I have two arguments for this claim.First, it is inappropriate for us to organize our assessments entirely around viewing our students as potential wrongdoers. We should commit, throughout our classes—and especially when it comes to points at which our students are especially vulnerable—to seeing them primarily as if they want to be part of the collective project of learning. Insofar as we structure assessments, which are an important part of the class, around preventing cheating, we necessarily become suspicious of our students, viewing them as opponents who must be threatened with sanctions to ensure good behavior or, barring that, outsmarted so that they cannot successfully break the rules. This both limits and corrupts the collective project of learning.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 04, 2023, 01:51:23 PM[. . .]seeing them primarily as if they want to be part of the collective project of learning. [. . .]
Quote from: spork on August 05, 2023, 10:38:36 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on August 04, 2023, 01:51:23 PM[. . .]seeing them primarily as if they want to be part of the collective project of learning. [. . .]I disagree with the premise. The proportion of undergrads at the schools I've worked at who have wanted to learn has declined steadily over time. Now it's a distinct minority.Much of the brouhaha about ChatGPT comes from making the emperor's lack of clothing even more obvious. Students have been cheating on writing assignments for decades, if not centuries, yet until recently professors could assuage themselves with delusions like "What I teach is so meaningful and how I teach is so engaging that cheating would never ever even enter into the minds of my students." Now there is no way to avoid acknowledging the fact that students never learned anything from those term papers assigned since the dawn of time by faculty who felt as though students were as eager to write in the passive voice as they themselves still were. The mirage of self-importance many professors lived in has disappeared.The widespread use of ChatGPT by students has given me even more reason to disengage further from my job. I get paid to teach. If students want to pay $100K-$200K for a lifestyle experience that doesn't involve learning, I don't care. But ChatGPT has really hit my wife, an academic in a field that uses writing a lot. ChatGPT and her university's (lack of) response to it has called into question her professional raison d'etre, if you'll pardon the French.
Quote from: dlehman on August 11, 2023, 05:32:52 AMSimply require students to include ChatGPT interrogations as part of their answer, along with a critique/improvement to that answer, and the cheating disappears. It isn't a bad assignment either.
Quote from: the_geneticist on August 16, 2023, 11:23:09 AMI have a colleague at another school that is taking the "if you use it, cite it" approach to ChatGPT. Students need to put in the original prompt & put the reply from ChatGPT in quotes. I think it's a great way to show them the strengths (has a lot of information; writing sounds nice) and limitations (not all the information is correct or relevant; the writing is boring).Human brains are still way more quirky & complicated that AI. We're not going to be replaced by a program that is the equivalent of a fancy auto-correct sentence generator.
Quote from: CaracalActually reading posts before responding to them seems to be a problem for a number of people on here...
Quote from: mbelvadi on August 22, 2023, 06:33:59 AMOur "teaching and learning" office recommends these two blog postings:Assignment Makeovers in the AI Age: Reading Response Editionhttps://derekbruff.org/?p=4083andAssignment Makeovers in the AI Age: Essay Editionhttps://derekbruff.org/?p=4105
Quote from: the_geneticist on August 23, 2023, 10:45:23 AMQuote from: mbelvadi on August 22, 2023, 06:33:59 AMOur "teaching and learning" office recommends these two blog postings:Assignment Makeovers in the AI Age: Reading Response Editionhttps://derekbruff.org/?p=4083andAssignment Makeovers in the AI Age: Essay Editionhttps://derekbruff.org/?p=4105I really like the idea of the "reading prompt" questions to be more personal and open-ended, then use the student responses to guide the discussion for the day. You really are wanting to build the ability to think critically, reason, and share ideas.And the responses from AI are honestly rather dull.But I am feeling a LOT of sympathy for my colleagues in the humanities & arts. It's going to be a rough few years while this sudden shift in technology changes what is considered acceptable use of AI in writing.