Excellent summary. This is pretty much where I've landed as where has most of the coverage on the issue. It feels a little like a rock and a hard place.
This is the best thing I've read in a while on the subject - thank you for bringing your expertise and disciplinary perspectives to bear on this issue. I'm also troubled by the split you describe. In theory, a robust conversation between those looking to use AI to advance instruction and research and those who oppose it entirely could lead to new approaches and insights - but I don't think that's what is going to happen, unfortunately, based on what I'm already seeing now. I fear we're going to end up in a worst-of-all-possible-worlds gridlock, where we are hamstrung in efforts to do research and apply AI but don't really make much of an impact on the social and environmental issues that the objectors are focused on.
It’s a hot mess of playing catch-up. My plans include encouraging students to use AI for collating and checking understanding. However, for my assignments I’m having an “open book” exam but only allowing written notes, and an in class reflection on a case-study. I will see how these work and adjust/ change as necessary.
Thought provoking and I’m always reminded that when I left school how everyone was convinced that calculators would end mathematical education.
There’s another aspect to AI that could be disturbing and that is how influential the funders political opinions can be, this PragerU podcast starts to discuss the subject:
We can safely conclude Bryan, that it is a noisy mess. The 'jagged frontier', not of the capabilities of AI but across sectors would put HE in the 'used by everyone but being strongly resisted' box. That is entirely predictable, as there is the illusion that HE owns knowledge and the right to control how it is generated and used. This was never true.
Meanwhile all learners use AI, mostly productively, while some faculty howl at the moon saying it makes us all stupid. A particular form of stupidity exists in HE, and AI has acted as a positive provocation to those who hold conceits on writing, teaching, learning and assessment. HE is not a centre of excellence on any of these.
1) Agreed that it's a noisy mess - and this survey is quite limited.
2) Losing the illusion - agreed. Much depends on public perception, though. One of my scenarios posits society viewing AI as good enough for purpose, while universities look clumsy and expensive in comparison.
3) I'm looking for HE to reboot assessment. Not happening yet.
Thanks! And wasn't that interesting? I find most surveys of AI use aren't too useful, but that one was thoughtful, had a solid size, and offered rich results.
Excellent summary. This is pretty much where I've landed as where has most of the coverage on the issue. It feels a little like a rock and a hard place.
https://fitzyhistory.substack.com/p/what-the-data-say-about-students
Thank you, Stephen. And a fine post you linked to. Naturally I subscribed.
This is the best thing I've read in a while on the subject - thank you for bringing your expertise and disciplinary perspectives to bear on this issue. I'm also troubled by the split you describe. In theory, a robust conversation between those looking to use AI to advance instruction and research and those who oppose it entirely could lead to new approaches and insights - but I don't think that's what is going to happen, unfortunately, based on what I'm already seeing now. I fear we're going to end up in a worst-of-all-possible-worlds gridlock, where we are hamstrung in efforts to do research and apply AI but don't really make much of an impact on the social and environmental issues that the objectors are focused on.
It’s a hot mess of playing catch-up. My plans include encouraging students to use AI for collating and checking understanding. However, for my assignments I’m having an “open book” exam but only allowing written notes, and an in class reflection on a case-study. I will see how these work and adjust/ change as necessary.
Interesting. Let us know how these plans go?
Thought provoking and I’m always reminded that when I left school how everyone was convinced that calculators would end mathematical education.
There’s another aspect to AI that could be disturbing and that is how influential the funders political opinions can be, this PragerU podcast starts to discuss the subject:
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/real-talk-with-marissa-streit/id1652968644?i=1000717789430
We can safely conclude Bryan, that it is a noisy mess. The 'jagged frontier', not of the capabilities of AI but across sectors would put HE in the 'used by everyone but being strongly resisted' box. That is entirely predictable, as there is the illusion that HE owns knowledge and the right to control how it is generated and used. This was never true.
Meanwhile all learners use AI, mostly productively, while some faculty howl at the moon saying it makes us all stupid. A particular form of stupidity exists in HE, and AI has acted as a positive provocation to those who hold conceits on writing, teaching, learning and assessment. HE is not a centre of excellence on any of these.
Good thoughts:
1) Agreed that it's a noisy mess - and this survey is quite limited.
2) Losing the illusion - agreed. Much depends on public perception, though. One of my scenarios posits society viewing AI as good enough for purpose, while universities look clumsy and expensive in comparison.
3) I'm looking for HE to reboot assessment. Not happening yet.
Helpful compilation! Especially the Nature article with its survey of researchers.
Thanks! And wasn't that interesting? I find most surveys of AI use aren't too useful, but that one was thoughtful, had a solid size, and offered rich results.
Bryan, thanks so much for this. I find it very useful and thought provoking.
You're very welcome, Gerald. I appreciate your reading and replying.